Rob Mullins
@robertmullins.bsky.social
Associate Professor, University of Queensland. My views are not the views of my employer.
archive.li/2025.03.02-1... this is not the opinion of someone who actually understands the difference between "high quality" and "low quality" evidence.
archive.li
November 11, 2025 at 6:41 AM
archive.li/2025.03.02-1... this is not the opinion of someone who actually understands the difference between "high quality" and "low quality" evidence.
Yes it was the SEGM speaking gig that first clued me in to what was going on. There's also been a very telling shift in her work from "yes it helps some people but we need to be careful" to "it should be banned and this needs no more research" over the past few years.
November 11, 2025 at 6:37 AM
Yes it was the SEGM speaking gig that first clued me in to what was going on. There's also been a very telling shift in her work from "yes it helps some people but we need to be careful" to "it should be banned and this needs no more research" over the past few years.
I found it very upsetting. What does she think is happening with all of the young people who need care?
November 10, 2025 at 11:52 PM
I found it very upsetting. What does she think is happening with all of the young people who need care?
I read this last night and really enjoyed it, thanks Dominic.
November 10, 2025 at 11:33 PM
I read this last night and really enjoyed it, thanks Dominic.
This has absolutely set me off. The philistinism of it all. The gall.
November 10, 2025 at 11:08 PM
This has absolutely set me off. The philistinism of it all. The gall.
There are plenty of medical experts--in the UK, US, Europe and Asia--who think that the current UK approach has it badly wrong. Why aren't they represented on the BBC, in the Times, in the Guardian, in the New Statesman? There's your "ideological capture". They're projecting .
November 10, 2025 at 11:06 PM
There are plenty of medical experts--in the UK, US, Europe and Asia--who think that the current UK approach has it badly wrong. Why aren't they represented on the BBC, in the Times, in the Guardian, in the New Statesman? There's your "ideological capture". They're projecting .
Hannah Barnes is on record against a RCT for puberty blockers. This isn't the mindset of a group willing to be guided by evidence and "data". They have decided, nearly a priori, that trans people under 18 can't consent to certain kinds of medical care. It's preposterously anti-scientific.
November 10, 2025 at 10:56 PM
Hannah Barnes is on record against a RCT for puberty blockers. This isn't the mindset of a group willing to be guided by evidence and "data". They have decided, nearly a priori, that trans people under 18 can't consent to certain kinds of medical care. It's preposterously anti-scientific.
Absolutely. Not everything will work, but we need to try. And it is a relatively cheap way of empowering people to make more decisions about what will make their own lives go best.
November 10, 2025 at 1:41 AM
Absolutely. Not everything will work, but we need to try. And it is a relatively cheap way of empowering people to make more decisions about what will make their own lives go best.
Ironically, I'm not sure how many votes are in it, but I think there is too little focus on the need for periodic democratic reforms and even experiments with new systems in established democracies. Lots of liberals are becoming less democratic, but I think we actually need more of it, not less.
November 10, 2025 at 1:37 AM
Ironically, I'm not sure how many votes are in it, but I think there is too little focus on the need for periodic democratic reforms and even experiments with new systems in established democracies. Lots of liberals are becoming less democratic, but I think we actually need more of it, not less.
I had a debate with a transphobe about whether that was undemocratic or whether I just didn't understand the UK legal system. I pointed out that the thing it reminded me of more than anything was the Howard government's intervention on euthanasia in the 90s. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_...
Rights of the Terminally Ill Act 1995 - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
November 10, 2025 at 1:32 AM
I had a debate with a transphobe about whether that was undemocratic or whether I just didn't understand the UK legal system. I pointed out that the thing it reminded me of more than anything was the Howard government's intervention on euthanasia in the 90s. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_...
I am being unavoidably condescending here, but I feel like even when we give MPs a conscience vote there is a process that makes things more efficient. The process of "legislating by committee" seen with e.g. the UK's VAD laws seems inferior to what we had in Queensland.
November 10, 2025 at 1:29 AM
I am being unavoidably condescending here, but I feel like even when we give MPs a conscience vote there is a process that makes things more efficient. The process of "legislating by committee" seen with e.g. the UK's VAD laws seems inferior to what we had in Queensland.
There are also parliamentary/executive overrides too, aren't there? Like e.g. section 35 of the Scotland Act.
November 10, 2025 at 1:24 AM
There are also parliamentary/executive overrides too, aren't there? Like e.g. section 35 of the Scotland Act.
Queensland doesn't have an upper house, and, while I acknowledge people disagree, I'm not sure it's hurt us all that much. My personal preference would be for a very weak upper house appointed by sortition.
November 10, 2025 at 1:07 AM
Queensland doesn't have an upper house, and, while I acknowledge people disagree, I'm not sure it's hurt us all that much. My personal preference would be for a very weak upper house appointed by sortition.
Yeah I see the argument. I'm not strongly committed to my view. I think you *may* be underestimating how dysfunctional things might be if you allow an upper house to routinely block supply, especially given the tendency for voters to deliberately split their votes between the reps and senate.
November 10, 2025 at 1:05 AM
Yeah I see the argument. I'm not strongly committed to my view. I think you *may* be underestimating how dysfunctional things might be if you allow an upper house to routinely block supply, especially given the tendency for voters to deliberately split their votes between the reps and senate.
Ah OK. I think it is probably good to have an enforceable legal norm to the effect that the upper house cannot block supply, but I can see how the DD trigger provides an escape valve that just isn't there in the US setting.
November 10, 2025 at 12:44 AM
Ah OK. I think it is probably good to have an enforceable legal norm to the effect that the upper house cannot block supply, but I can see how the DD trigger provides an escape valve that just isn't there in the US setting.
Wait, I'm still angry about it too. What's the short version of the argument that it was Whitlam's fault? My favourite boomer view, due for a revival, is that it was all the CIA.
November 10, 2025 at 12:31 AM
Wait, I'm still angry about it too. What's the short version of the argument that it was Whitlam's fault? My favourite boomer view, due for a revival, is that it was all the CIA.
Even if it is rightly decided in practice you can probably get around it by saying "these beliefs are bigoted" rather than "Jo Bloggs is a bigot", but I really don't want to read the decision again.
November 10, 2025 at 12:17 AM
Even if it is rightly decided in practice you can probably get around it by saying "these beliefs are bigoted" rather than "Jo Bloggs is a bigot", but I really don't want to read the decision again.
Quite. I think the Phoenix tribunal decision was wrong on at least this point. Calling these beliefs bigoted is an exercise of academic freedom.
November 10, 2025 at 12:15 AM
Quite. I think the Phoenix tribunal decision was wrong on at least this point. Calling these beliefs bigoted is an exercise of academic freedom.
I can't remember the details but there was some exchange on TV not long after the judgment where it became apparent that one of the panellists thought "trans man" was a reference to trans women. Of course there is also a deliberate strategy to make these terms seem more confusing than they are.
November 9, 2025 at 11:07 PM
I can't remember the details but there was some exchange on TV not long after the judgment where it became apparent that one of the panellists thought "trans man" was a reference to trans women. Of course there is also a deliberate strategy to make these terms seem more confusing than they are.
I honestly think it's a mix. The diehards in that exchange absolutely would understand, but I think there's a few run-of-the-mill cranks who have never thought about this problem with their view before because when you say the phrase "trans men" they think of trans women.
November 9, 2025 at 11:03 PM
I honestly think it's a mix. The diehards in that exchange absolutely would understand, but I think there's a few run-of-the-mill cranks who have never thought about this problem with their view before because when you say the phrase "trans men" they think of trans women.
It is a real problem for public debate in this area that for a certain group of people to understand your arguments you need to use extremely demeaning language ("male presenting women"), or else they just won't understand the problem.
November 9, 2025 at 10:49 PM
It is a real problem for public debate in this area that for a certain group of people to understand your arguments you need to use extremely demeaning language ("male presenting women"), or else they just won't understand the problem.
I think it was a good demonstration of how credulous people have been. It doesn't take much questioning for it to unravel. But there isn't ordinarily much questioning.
November 9, 2025 at 11:02 AM
I think it was a good demonstration of how credulous people have been. It doesn't take much questioning for it to unravel. But there isn't ordinarily much questioning.