Rob Mullins

@robertmullins

Associate Professor, University of Queensland.

765 Siguiendo958 Seguidores3792 Publicaciones

¿Es tu perfil?Reclámalo y robertmullins.dirty.social es tuyo.Reclamar perfil

Rob Mullins@robertmullins· Jul 6

Even in their most recent polling, they only offer three options when I suspect lots of people think e.g. "well of course Suzie at work can use the ladies but I have concerns about self-id".

Rob Mullins@robertmullins· Jul 2

Yep this is it, and this is in the second paragraph.

Rob Mullins@robertmullins· Jul 1

Anyway, here's Lord Nicholls in Bellinger v Bellinger (just about the most conservative of the turn of the century decisions on sex reassignment).

31. Recognition of gender reassignment will involve some blurring of the normally accepted biological distinction between male and female. Some blurring already exists, unavoidably, in the case of inter-sexual persons. When assessing the gender of inter-sexual persons, matters taken into account include self-perception and style of upbringing and living. Recognition of gender reassignment will involve further blurring. It will mean that in law a person who, unlike an inter-sexual person, had all the biological characteristics of one sex at birth may subsequently be treated as a member of the opposite sex.

15. In Australia Chisholm J reached a similar conclusion in Re Kevin (validity of marriage of transsexual) [2001] Fam CA 1074, a case decided after the decision of the Court of Appeal in the present case. Chisholm J's extensive judgment contains a powerful critique of the existing law and a useful review of international developments. Having regard to the view I take of this case, it is not necessary for me to elaborate on his views. Suffice to say, his conclusion was that there is no 'formulaic solution' to determining the sex of an individual for the purpose of the law of marriage. All relevant matters need to be considered, including the person's life experiences and self-perception. Post-operative transsexual people will normally be members of their reassigned sex.

13. The decision in Corbett has attracted much criticism, from the medical profession and elsewhere. The criteria for designating a person as male or female are complex. It is too 'reductionistic' to have regard only to the three Corbett factors of chromosomes, gonads and genitalia. This approach ignores 'the compelling significance of the psychological status of the person as a man or a woman'. Further, the application of the Corbett approach leads to a substantially different outcome in the cases of a post-operative inter-sexual person and a post-operative transsexual person, even though, post-operatively, the bodies of the two individuals may be remarkably similar.

Rob Mullins@robertmullins· Jun 21

I'm crowdsourcing this. I get "intersex is offensive and you should use DSD" a lot from gender critical people. As far as I can tell it isn't true. Does anyone know where it came from?

Rob Mullins@robertmullins· Jun 10

I gather this guy is a respected journalist in the UK. He just posted this on a trans woman's linkedin post. I don't think he knows her personally. What is happening to people?

You are welcome to come and piss in the men's. It's our job to make you feel welcome. Men who think they are women is a male problem. It is it very typical of trans-identifying men not to care about women's feelings. That's okay so long as you don't start encroaching on their spaces. Start a campaign to piss in the men's and make it men's job to make it safe for you. I will support it.

Rob Mullins@robertmullins· Jun 5

This is wrong, for a start. Her biological sex will be a question of fact not determined by her certificate.

Rob Mullins@robertmullins· Jun 2

Like Rach, I take the statistical claim here to relate to trans women in particular. Personally, I can't think of any reason why trans men should be excluded. But in any case I can't see any statistical argument for trans men's exclusion in play.

Rob Mullins@robertmullins· Jun 1

Well they had to resolve the case one way or other, but they didn't have to buy into the idea of a strict "biological" demarcation. Here's Lord Fraser in re: race in Mandala v Dowell-Lee.

Rob Mullins@robertmullins· May 28

Because the conditions for it to be wrongful aren't met. So e.g. on Schauer's approach the groups in question are different because cis people aren't stigmatized and trans people are.

Rob Mullins@robertmullins· May 26

A comment on my LinkedIn yesterday, in response to a post of mine that mentioned trans women breastfeeding.

Rob Mullins@robertmullins· May 26

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 was deeply saddened to see the content of the EHRC's revised code of practice, which the equalities minister laid before Parliament last week.

A few months ago I wrote the below blog post for the UKCLA, arguing against the EHRC's interpretation of the code. As with all blog posts, my arguments were abbreviated and there are points that I would already frame differently. But I am proud of writing it.

https://lnkd.in/gjDAhQCA

There are many things wrong with the code, but I will mention just one. In FWS the Supreme Court acknowledged that trans men and women can be the victims of sex discrimination and harassment in their acquired sex. It is incoherent and unprincipled to interpret the Equality Act as recognising that trans women can be the victims of misogynist harassment and violence, while also prohibiting them from receiving services that allow them the care and companionship of other women with similar experiences.

I also want to express my concerns about the changing environment for students at British universities. I feel a duty to speak out on this on behalf of my own trans, non-binary and intersex students. Some of them would no doubt have considered travelling to the UK for postgraduate studies. I fear that many of them will now have to add the UK to a growing list of countries where they will be excluded and stigmatised for living as they always have.

It should go without saying, but I write this on my own behalf and not on behalf of my employer.

Rob Mullins@robertmullins· May 26

You'd think so. But I'd tentatively suggest that many of the people who've pushed hardest for the current situation in the UK aren't motivated by a genuine concern for toilet accessibility.

Rob Mullins@robertmullins· May 21

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.

While it also remains the case that a transsexual cannot acquire all the biological characteristics of the assigned sex (Sheffield and Horsham, cited above, p. 2028, § 56), the Court notes that with increasingly sophisticated surgery and types of hormonal treatments, the principal unchanging biological aspect of gender identity is the chromosomal element. It is known however that chromosomal anomalies may arise naturally (for example, in cases of intersex conditions where the biological criteria at birth are not congruent) and in those cases, some persons have to be assigned to one sex or the other as seems most appropriate in the circumstances of the individual case. It is not apparent to the Court that the chromosomal element, amongst all the others, must inevitably take on decisive significance for the purposes of legal attribution of gender identity for transsexuals (see the dissenting opinion of Thorpe LJ in Bellinger v. Bellinger cited in paragraph 52 above; and the judgment of Chisholm J in the Australian case, Re Kevin, cited in paragraph

Rob Mullins@robertmullins· May 20

Paragraph 2 of the Giggle v Tickle judgment.

Rob Mullins@robertmullins· May 20

But here is e.g. the Equal Treatment Bench Book overview for religion.

Adjustments to the court process
11. A requirement of a religion may mean proceedings need to be conducted in a certain way,
eg breaks, adjusted hours and order of witnesses, to allow for fasting and its impact on
metabolism, the need to undertake prayer during the day, Sabbaths starting at sunset, and
religious holy days; or following a bereavement, where a religious faith encourages swift
funeral ceremonies and extended periods of mourning.
12. Many religious faiths incorporate elements of fasting, to a greater or lesser extent. A fasting
day is sometimes so holy that it is also not permitted to work or come into court (eg Yom
Kippur).
13. In all cases it is important to demonstrate respect for religious differences:
• Show understanding of any issues regarding times when a religious person cannot attend
court, eg because of an important holy day, or because they need time off or facilities to
pray. For more detail, see appendix D (Glossary of religions).
• Take care to get a person’s name right. For details, see “Names and naming systems”.
• Show understanding regarding correct practice on taking the oath. Witnesses/jurors
should not be pressurised into taking an oath on the wrong religious book. They should
be offered the choice of taking a religious oath without the religious book or affirming if
they prefer. The important point is that they feel bound by the oath or affirmation. For
details, see appendix D (Glossary of religions).
• Avoid making any unnecessary objections regarding dress code. (See “Religious dress
and wearing the veil” below.)
• Consider changing the order in which witnesses are called or timings of hearings/breaks
to accommodate faiths that observe their weekly Sabbath from sunset (or before) on
Friday until sunset on Saturday (the period where work/activity is not permitted).
If a person is fasting, it is helpful to understand the following:
• Periods of fasting can often be for many hours and for lengthy periods,…

Rob Mullins@robertmullins· May 19

Yes. No one serious denies this (not even Judith Butler as far as I know). The real question is why does all this matter? I like John Dupre's way of putting things in his "Sex, Gender and Essence".

Rob Mullins@robertmullins· May 19

No that's incorrect. In cases that fall outside of the Corbett criteria sex is a multi-factorial determination that takes into account, among other things, the sex in which you were raised and psychological factors. See Bellinger v Bellinger. (And Michael Foran agrees with me it seems.)

Rob Mullins@robertmullins· May 17

Like...

Rob Mullins@robertmullins· May 16

Because she changed her legal sex. The rest of us aren't bound by your obtuse metaphysics..

Rob Mullins@robertmullins· May 11

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.

Rob Mullins@robertmullins· May 3

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

Rob Mullins@robertmullins· May 1

Not all heros etc.

Rob Mullins@robertmullins· May 1

Granted this is private correspondence, but in my experience people talk this way about trans and non-binary academics in UK academia all the time. There is an appalling double standard here.

Rob Mullins@robertmullins· May 1

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

Rob Mullins@robertmullins· Apr 26

It includes this incredibly summary of Stock's views (I gather it's accurate).

One prominent defense of compulsory sex-marking is that it facilitates social coordination. In my description of the hegemonic gender regime in Section II, I noted that its rules help simplify coordination problems by splitting the human population into two easily identifiable groups and assigning distinct roles to each. Compulsory sex-marking is key to this process, as it ensures that everyone knows what role others are meant to play. Were this system to break down, coordinating around certain activities—such as, for example, pleasurable sex or sex for reproductive purposes—might become more difficult. Kathleen Stock, for one, writes that no less a drastic outcome than our species’ extinction would occur if we could no longer reliably identify the sex of others.58 If compulsory sex-marking really does help us coordinate in the ways that (again, as described in Sec. II) economists, sociologists, and philosophers of science have suggested, might the benefits from this coordination not, at least potentially, give us reason to accept a more minimal sphere of personal freedom?

Rob Mullins@robertmullins· Apr 22

She contradicts herself within a single short article. Athletes with Y chromosomes are allowed to compete in the female category (and just as well too).

Rob Mullins@robertmullins· Apr 21

Rob Mullins@robertmullins· Apr 2

Rob Mullins@robertmullins· Mar 31

Never mind I found the tabs.