Because she is too smart to be on here, I'm sharing Rach Cosker-Rowland's "The Injustice of Bathroom Bills". I particularly like her statistical discrimination argument: www.cambridge.org/core/journal...

Delighted to see NION women Australia launch overnight. Started by one of our UK team, who took it with her when she moved, and surrounded herself with good people. Please welcome @Nionwomenaus over on Instagram, share their letter and sign if you’re based there 🙌 actionnetwork.org/forms/nionwo...

🔥🔥🔥 www.cambridge.org/core/journal...

I posted this on LinkedIn, partly because I have students on there that aren't on here and I wanted them to see it. I'm going to try to post less about this and be more useful to the world. I'll stay on here, because I learn so much from you all.

I'll need to think about it, but it's hard to see why similar interpretive considerations re singular /plural wouldn't allow you take to positive action on behalf of men/women and trans people under s158 (trans inclusive men's/women's toilets and swimming pools, say).

MIDDLEMARCH HIVE, RISE UP!

It's worth citing what the ECtHR actually said in Goodwin (not the judgment as some anti-trans lawyers remember it), not only because it still has authority, but because it is still true.

June 2024: The latest general-purpose LLMs could not count the r's in strawberry. July 2025: The latest general-purpose LLMs get gold in the International Math Olympiad. May 2026: The latest general-purpose LLM solve an 80 year old problem, one of the "best-known questions in combinatorial geometry"

Can anyone who is a British or international academic who is interested in taking some sort of collective action in protest please contact me? I am interested in trying to coordinate a response and don't know what I'm doing.

We're in the age of constitutional revisionism, sperheaded by the Reed/Sales court, and we now start seeing the effects trickling down the judicial system. No wonder the Judicial Power Project has gone all but quiet

Five Australian books I works have put on this list: 1. The Man Who Loved Children, Christina Stead, 2. Voss, Patrick White, 3. The Twyborn Affair, Patrick White, 4. My Brilliant Career, Miles Franklin, 5. My Brother Jack, George Johnston www.theguardian.com/books/ng-int...

Contact Associate Professor Robert Mullins directly for media enquiries about: gender Legal Philosophy Rights Theory sex Trans rights

My take on the UKSC's Dillon judgment - it is a combination of regressive and dubious reasoning. It radically reduces the range of cases in which Art 2 is applicable, in reasoning which flies in the face of the UK Government's promises over the provision: ukconstitutionallaw.org/2026/05/14/c...

Today I read this correspondence Harry Benjamin sent after Ormrod J's decision in Corbett. "Science without humanism is an ugly distortion of science". He discusses the "panic" of his trans patients.

It's not the main problem, but this exchange highlights very nicely the legal flaw in the EHRC's position. In circumstances where facilities are sex segregated, who is put in this humiliating position? *Only* trans people. That's why it's directly discriminatory.

Indiana quietly becoming one of the worst states in the country for higher ed. There's no way administrators do this because they're ONLY craven appeasers. They do this because they want to and now they have cover. A plant microbiologist, for God's sake.

[emerges briefly from crypt] The Reed Court has an impeccable ability to be a dazzling combination of wilfully ignorant of and also oblivious to how EU law works and what HMG intended when legislating on Brexit, huh? See Lipton, Dillon, and yes, FWS. Angry article forthcoming. [reenters crypt]

A lot of public discourse is about whether trans people have the "right" to enter this or that space. But I think at its core this a question of liberty, not claim rights. We should all have the freedom to change our sex, in the same way we have the freedom to change our religion or our sexuality.

Important post by @lewisgrahamlaw.bsky.social on some recent comments made by Lord Reed to the Constitution Committee. What constitutes a 'sound understanding of constitutional relationship' is contested, and the idea that only UKSC candidates sharing Reed's will be selected is quite troubling

There are so many funny things about this but I like: (1) Unherd! (2) Women are baby robot females (apparently)

The Pope's AI advisor: "here are the arguments for burning Peter Thiel at the stake". Dawkins: "the chatbot is my special lady friend"

To be earnest for a minute, there is a palpable attempt (including from some academics) to make out that anyone that disagrees with the most extreme interpretations of the Supreme Court decision are confused, deluded or just plain lying.

I've been having fun in the posting mines. Earning my stripes.🫡

the UK has some of the world's greatest universities, many of them on the verge of financial collapse due to government indifference, and for some reason a regulator with ~400 full time staff members that appears to be focused on pursuing culture war vendettas

This kind of reading down of the significance of s. 7 to the point of repeal is what I am arguing against in this post. I find it very sinister: ukconstitutionallaw.org/2026/03/09/r...

I'm that guy at conferences whose main question is along the lines of 'this is fine, but presupposes a positivist understanding of law.' For years I've been thinking this about legal status, so I'm thrilled to get this piece out of my system: www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.... (1/3)

Just published, OPEN ACCESS! www.cambridge.org/core/books/h...

It's not one for trans people, as Anne says, and I've only read the transcript, but I thought Anne did a good job here. I think the debate is representative of the quality of argument on both sides.

feel like this is coming up in a lot of domains at once, but super abstractly: any substantive quality standards are going to result in de facto 'viewpoint discrimination', because certain viewpoints are low quality when judged by those standards. you gotta choose!

When I want to feel depressed I can look into the various connections between UQ and the Danube Institute.

The Lesbian Action Group decision is being widely misreported online. You can read the decision: www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Ju... It did not find that sex is "binary and immutable". The reasoning is very cautious and clear (and in my opinion correct). The AHRC will now reconsider.

If the intellectual diversity of law schools matched the intellectual diversity of the general population, every law school with ~40 academics would have at least one member of faculty with expertise in Shariah law.

This has made my day: kottke.org/26/04/online...

Well worth a read if you have any interest in the way in which law inherited from the EU is treated in the UK courts.

Ditto for the new trend of people referring to their beliefs or actions as "legally protected". That's not what we're arguing about!

I’ve tweeted about this probably a hundred times, but since we’re doing the discourse again, here ya go

The paper is a formal look at a perennial problem: how is the doctrine of precedent supposed to constrain, if cases can always be reinterpreted and (at the limit) confined to their facts?

My article "Distinguishing and Reinterpreting in the Reason Model of Precedent" is now available Open Access in Legal Theory (I don't love the HTML formatting, so I recommend downloading the PDF): www.cambridge.org/core/journal...

I just wanted to say something publicly in support of Sophie Grace Chappel, who is (again) being subjected to disgraceful attacks on her academic integrity. I think she is a fine philosopher and will do a great job on the REF panel. The UK and Open University are lucky to still have her.

Something to bear in mind is that the IOC has not disclosed the members of its working group on protection of the sex category. I have been looking for more expert statements in support of IOC policy but haven't seen any (yet). There are scientists who support it who will no doubt make statements.

The story of what happened to the ANU in the past few years is very sad but there is something darkly comic about Genevieve Bell's institute getting money from Meta to write a report on the 'Cybernetic approaches to the Metaverse" only for the Metaverse to be killed off.

My review of John Horty's "The Logic of Precedent" has been published in Ethics. It's a great, important book. This will probably not come as a surprise to people because Horty writes very good books. www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/... (DM me for a draft).

'Garbage in and garbage out.' No surprises in the 4 Corners investigation into consulting companies used by #AustralianUniversities Trying to moosh Art and Humanities into the same workload model as Science and Engineering is doomed to failure www.abc.net.au/news/2026-03...

I'm going to start a thread collating expert responses to the IOC's sex testing policy. Please feel free to reply with additions. I'm more interested in the views of scientists than lawyers or philosophers, but everything counts.

Law school grades are predictive of lawyers' incomes. But Gabriele Plickert and I found that women with the highest grades earned LESS than lower-achieving men in private practice.

We had only written the pilot of Halt and Catch Fire when we read Soul of the New Machine. That book had a huge impact not only on the content of our show, but the tone. The humanity at the center of the work. The book is still on my desk and will be forever. We owe Tracy a lot.

Here is the British Journal of Sports Medicine's consensus statement after the World Athletics announcement: a "harmful anachronism" bjsm.bmj.com/content/60/7...

Sex testing will harm cis women and girls far more than it harms anyone else.

This is heartbreaking. Please stop for a moment and consider the children caught up in this. Imagine you're a trans child - already a difficult experience, to put it mildly - and you've found a hobby you enjoy with friends, and now you're being kicked out for being trans. It's cruel.