Rob Mullins

Harper to the judge: "Your driver's license doesn't list your height and weight at birth. It doesn't list where you used to live. It identifies who you are now."

Great piece, Crash.

On the WI, trans members and discrimination in associations Introduction

New piece up! Looking at some of the legal issues raised by the @womensinstitute.bsky.social announcements about trans members. medium.com/@crash.wigle...

I worry I'm going to be negatively polarized into liking Butler's work (I've never read it properly), but the all the negative reviews of their latest book were so catty and content free it did make me curious.

I'm also interested in direct discrimination on the basis of perceived gender reassignment. It seems like a cis person who was kicked out of a toilet on basis of appearance would have decent prospects of winning a case but I think it's totally untested?

This is the problem and the Supreme Court didn't address it. They seem to suggest at one point that you could just refuse to disclose your "true sexuality" and sue in your presented sexuality even if you don't "pass". But it's really tenuous.

I also like the fact that if you follow the logic of the Supreme Court you get the very special "Stock theorem": bisexuals are gay and straight at the same time.

No "intermediate zone" here. Nothing to see please move on.

Because I'm cis and oblivious, I hadn't really processed that the whole rationale for the "spousal veto" is that your spouse's sexuality changes when you transition. So a partner's sexuality now changes for one purpose but not the other.

Read my accessible analysis of Goodwin v UK – why it still matters, and what the courts are getting wrong – here:

It's worth calling this sort of thing out, even if it doesn't change the outcome this time.

I'm my limited experience this sort of bias is just as common as the opposing sort of "pro trans" bias. I don't know what norms are like in your discipline, but it might be worth a polite note to the editor.

I'm sorry, Rafe. I wish it were easier.

you can take it from me, almost everyone in society would prefer that you be a masc cis lesbian or femme cis gay man rather than a trans person, and the way they treat you when they are forced to confront the fact that you're trans leaves you in zero doubt about that

I can't for the life of me imagine paying to read this guy's transcription of a Scottish judicial review hearing, but the sickos are doing it.

I also think the substack/subscription model means it is a good grift. There's dozens of these types on substack now and they seem to get good (not great) numbers off of it.

This is claude whenever I share a draft.

I have been trialling claude with research papers and it's wildly and delusionally supportive. It keeps asking me why I'm asking it to check new drafts when what I've written is already good to go. Then I'll find some basic error it didn't spot.

I think people are missing the potential to build a broader coalition against medical gatekeeping.

"Clearly what parliament intended here is an exhaustive taxonomy of sexual orientation into its three basic forms, defined exclusively by an individual's attraction to small or large gamete producing potential."

The least coherent part of a very poor judgment, I think.

It’s also worth repeating that, as of April 2025, it is the position under UK equality law that the actual sexualities and genders of binary trans people must be reversed. A straight trans woman is now only really protected by equality law if discriminated against as a gay man.

I have published in rights theory, by the way, and I really don't understand what Michael was saying there. Perhaps he expanded on it but I have my doubts about "sex-based rights" as a concept (and with "group rights" generally).

Yeah. It's out of vogue in online circles, but feminist scholars having been warning about this for a long time.

I've recommended it before on here but this piece really sums up the problem with the "sex-based rights" framing (though it doesn't use that language): scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scho...

Daniella Lock: In Defence of the Divisional Court’s Palestine Action Ruling This post responds to important issues raised by Dane Luo and Gabriel Tan with regard to one of the grounds upheld by the Divisional Court in the judicial review of Palestine Action’s proscription …

Daniella Lock: In Defence of the Divisional Court’s Palestine Action Ruling ukconstitutionallaw.org/2026/03/02/d...

If I were a world leader, I would simply govern in defiance of the Gods, safe in the knowledge they could never punish me for my hubris.

It's great when you are the last one on. It feels like you're getting special attention.

Two children killed in a hospital.

The target may have been the state broadcaster, which is presumptively a civilian object and not a lawful target.

I quite like Rugby, but whenever I watch I find myself thinking about how it would be better with 13 a side and uncontested scrums.