Jon Pike

Professor of Philosophy @OU_Philosophy.
Political philosophy and the ethics and metaphysics of sport. @OU_GCRN
(RT ≠ endorsement, all views personal, obvs.)

[Jon Pike @runthinkwrite]

Here is my latest paper, published today in the Journal of the Philosophy of Sport and co-authored with Dr Emma Hilton @fondofbeetles from Manchester University. I would like to thank @OpenUniversity for their ongoing support of my research
https://t.co/Ou90CxUPAj

[Yuan Yi Zhu @yuanyi_z]

I cannot think of a single thing that has ever been improved by the involvement of the Good Law Project.

[Jon Pike @runthinkwrite]

... To state the obvious, women's rights to fair sport don't figure at all. The letter is a - frankly - painful attempt to resuscitate the Framework Document, without understanding why it is dead.

The IOC will politely reject it, I reckon.

[Jon Pike @runthinkwrite]

So, five UN mandate-holders have written to the IOC attacking the new Female Category Policy (SRY screening, adopted March 2026). It's worth going through this letter carefully, because the reasoning is weak in the same places the 2021 Framework was weak. 🧵

[UN Special Rapporteur Cultural Rights @AlexXanthaki]

In Comm OTH55/2026 published today, UN Special Procedures say loudly to the @ioc that the new blanket exclusion of intersex and female trans athletes from the Olympic and the invasive relevant tests are against current human rights standards; and ask about the process of adoption

[Jon Pike @runthinkwrite]

... So: The UN letter wrongly assumes categorical, sex-based eligibility rules need justification beyond "fairness and safety for female athletes," while treating the case-by-case alternative as though it were self-evidently more rights-respecting. It's not.