@myqueerheart.bsky.social
Wildlife photography. Social Justice Queer.
He/him. No transphobes.
He/him. No transphobes.
Reposted
Wonderful
My stab at a letter wrt the BBC News at Ten.
Haven't got into the details of the press summary though.
Haven't got into the details of the press summary though.
December 9, 2025 at 12:46 AM
Wonderful
Reposted
The BBC is now consistently using a transphobic slur to refer to trans people.
Transphobes are still not happy. That's still not hateful and cruel enough.
Transphobes are still not happy. That's still not hateful and cruel enough.
December 8, 2025 at 10:31 PM
The BBC is now consistently using a transphobic slur to refer to trans people.
Transphobes are still not happy. That's still not hateful and cruel enough.
Transphobes are still not happy. That's still not hateful and cruel enough.
Reposted
I keep thinking of Beth Upton today, who won against an absolutely foul, racist bigot, and should be having the best day, but is still being monstered by our entire media, for the crime of merely existing as her authentic self and doing a job in the NHS that helps people, all day every day.
#C4News went above & beyond, reporting:
"a nurse has won a harassment claim against Dr Beth Upton."
No she didn't. NHS FIFE harassed her, not Upton.
This is almost defamatory, & they mentioned none of the dismissed parts or the implications for trans women in SS spaces. I complained to Ofcom.
"a nurse has won a harassment claim against Dr Beth Upton."
No she didn't. NHS FIFE harassed her, not Upton.
This is almost defamatory, & they mentioned none of the dismissed parts or the implications for trans women in SS spaces. I complained to Ofcom.
December 8, 2025 at 9:37 PM
I keep thinking of Beth Upton today, who won against an absolutely foul, racist bigot, and should be having the best day, but is still being monstered by our entire media, for the crime of merely existing as her authentic self and doing a job in the NHS that helps people, all day every day.
Reposted
You'd never know it from these headlines that she lost all her claims on the actual substance of the case, claiming that trans people must be banned from bathrooms.
December 8, 2025 at 3:20 PM
You'd never know it from these headlines that she lost all her claims on the actual substance of the case, claiming that trans people must be banned from bathrooms.
Reposted
Sex baked rights.
I'd pay good money just to see her argument for these biscuits being "biologically male"
December 8, 2025 at 8:40 PM
Sex baked rights.
Reposted
Could a journalist please ask Joani Reid MP what or who the 'virus' is?
Without clarification, it sounds an awful lot like she thinks the existence and recognition of trans people is the virus. That's far more extreme than even Reform have come out with.
Without clarification, it sounds an awful lot like she thinks the existence and recognition of trans people is the virus. That's far more extreme than even Reform have come out with.
December 8, 2025 at 5:06 PM
Could a journalist please ask Joani Reid MP what or who the 'virus' is?
Without clarification, it sounds an awful lot like she thinks the existence and recognition of trans people is the virus. That's far more extreme than even Reform have come out with.
Without clarification, it sounds an awful lot like she thinks the existence and recognition of trans people is the virus. That's far more extreme than even Reform have come out with.
Reposted
some significant part of this is just catch-all fear for “this is not the child I ordered” I think
Oh, here's a big surprise. The transphobes don't believe in ADHD either.
then, the transphobes , feeling victorious at how many people they have made unhappy and despairing in the previous week, move on to anything else that has a spectrum and the possibility of more colours than they can conceive - such hateful people - they cannot understand anything that is not THEM
December 8, 2025 at 1:09 PM
some significant part of this is just catch-all fear for “this is not the child I ordered” I think
Reposted
Dear media: stop running Sex Matters press releases as though they were neutral findings of fact
December 8, 2025 at 3:24 PM
Dear media: stop running Sex Matters press releases as though they were neutral findings of fact
Reposted
"The assertion at 10 (b) for example was “Sex is in general readily perceptible and is salient to other people.” That we consider cannot be other than her opinion, for which no support from any document in the Supplementary Bundle appeared to be referred to in her written witness
statement. "
statement. "
December 8, 2025 at 4:57 PM
"The assertion at 10 (b) for example was “Sex is in general readily perceptible and is salient to other people.” That we consider cannot be other than her opinion, for which no support from any document in the Supplementary Bundle appeared to be referred to in her written witness
statement. "
statement. "
Reposted
"The statement from Ms Forstater was not presented as impartial evidence, but specifically as one given in support of the claimant. It had at paragraph 10 an argument as to facts, of which Ms Forstater said that she was certain. They are however we consider not facts, but expressions of her opinion"
December 8, 2025 at 4:56 PM
"The statement from Ms Forstater was not presented as impartial evidence, but specifically as one given in support of the claimant. It had at paragraph 10 an argument as to facts, of which Ms Forstater said that she was certain. They are however we consider not facts, but expressions of her opinion"
Reposted
I know Forstater is a shameless, pathological liar and has brain rot, but if was written about in a judge's summary like she was in the Sandy Peggie case, i would die. Drop dead, on the spot, die.
December 8, 2025 at 4:54 PM
I know Forstater is a shameless, pathological liar and has brain rot, but if was written about in a judge's summary like she was in the Sandy Peggie case, i would die. Drop dead, on the spot, die.
Reposted
I think at this stage we should point out: kicking up a huge legal fuss, losing hugely on all the merits, and playing up a ruling in your favour over a minor technical or procedural point, is a well established strategy in the UK *because* the press will absolutely 100% play along with it.
Two ways to read this. One is “she lost on every substantive claim, completely failed in her attempts to ban trans staff from the workplace, and won mild procedural victories against her employers handling of her case”.
The other way is, I guess, “point one is longer so it must be more important”
The other way is, I guess, “point one is longer so it must be more important”
December 8, 2025 at 4:27 PM
I think at this stage we should point out: kicking up a huge legal fuss, losing hugely on all the merits, and playing up a ruling in your favour over a minor technical or procedural point, is a well established strategy in the UK *because* the press will absolutely 100% play along with it.
Reposted
I see Helen fucking Lewis of the institutionally-transphobic The Atlantic is stirring up shit again.
here is but a sample of her work. and if you post this in her comments asking why she can't shut up about trans folks she will block you and then you can go back to not knowing who she is
December 8, 2025 at 3:55 PM
I see Helen fucking Lewis of the institutionally-transphobic The Atlantic is stirring up shit again.
Reposted
I can't help but remember that "it" is also the word used by the man who murdered poor Brianna Ghey in a transphobic attack.
These people don't have "reasonable concerns" - they are revolting bigots.
These people don't have "reasonable concerns" - they are revolting bigots.
December 8, 2025 at 2:46 PM
I can't help but remember that "it" is also the word used by the man who murdered poor Brianna Ghey in a transphobic attack.
These people don't have "reasonable concerns" - they are revolting bigots.
These people don't have "reasonable concerns" - they are revolting bigots.
Reposted
Oooft. Sandie Peggie shared highly offensive messages and was then "untruthful" in giving evidence to the Tribunal.
This is the 'hero' Gender Critical campaigners have chosen.
This is the 'hero' Gender Critical campaigners have chosen.
December 8, 2025 at 2:34 PM
Oooft. Sandie Peggie shared highly offensive messages and was then "untruthful" in giving evidence to the Tribunal.
This is the 'hero' Gender Critical campaigners have chosen.
This is the 'hero' Gender Critical campaigners have chosen.
Reposted
Remember: the EHRC's Interim Guidance, and we understand the draft statutory guidance too, recommended a trans bathroom ban. Two tribunals have now disagreed.
This is the second decision - both first instance - since the appalling For (Some) Women Scotland decision to find that there is no trans bathroom ban. www.gov.uk/employment-t...
B M Kelly v Leonardo UK Ltd: 8001497/2024
Employment Tribunal decision.
www.gov.uk
December 8, 2025 at 3:57 PM
Remember: the EHRC's Interim Guidance, and we understand the draft statutory guidance too, recommended a trans bathroom ban. Two tribunals have now disagreed.
Reposted
Decision in the Sandie Peggie case.
She was not directly or indirectly discriminated against, her claim of victimisation fails entirely, her claim of harassment fails largely and her claim against Beth Upton fails entirely. www.judiciary.uk/judgments/sa...
She was not directly or indirectly discriminated against, her claim of victimisation fails entirely, her claim of harassment fails largely and her claim against Beth Upton fails entirely. www.judiciary.uk/judgments/sa...
Sandie Peggie -v- Fife Health Board and another (judgment and summary) - Courts and Tribunals Judiciary
Case number: 4104864/2024 Employment Tribunal, Scotland 8 December 2025 Before: Employment Judge A KempTribunal Member L BrownTribunal Member C Russell Between: Mrs Sandie Peggie -v- Fife Health Board...
www.judiciary.uk
December 8, 2025 at 1:33 PM
Decision in the Sandie Peggie case.
She was not directly or indirectly discriminated against, her claim of victimisation fails entirely, her claim of harassment fails largely and her claim against Beth Upton fails entirely. www.judiciary.uk/judgments/sa...
She was not directly or indirectly discriminated against, her claim of victimisation fails entirely, her claim of harassment fails largely and her claim against Beth Upton fails entirely. www.judiciary.uk/judgments/sa...
Reposted
Today’s judgment in the Sandie Peggie case says exactly what we have been saying – For Women Scotland does not require a trans bathroom ban:
December 8, 2025 at 3:21 PM
Today’s judgment in the Sandie Peggie case says exactly what we have been saying – For Women Scotland does not require a trans bathroom ban:
Reposted
Huge! The ET then goes on to analyse at [798] just how significantly trans people's rights would be impacted if this were the case.
December 8, 2025 at 3:21 PM
Huge! The ET then goes on to analyse at [798] just how significantly trans people's rights would be impacted if this were the case.
Reposted
"If [...] all trans persons must be excluded from the changing rooms or toilets for the sex they identify with because it was not the sex assigned at birth, & may also be excluded from the changing rooms or toilets of their biological sex, that in our view certainly does impact on their rights..."
December 8, 2025 at 3:21 PM
"If [...] all trans persons must be excluded from the changing rooms or toilets for the sex they identify with because it was not the sex assigned at birth, & may also be excluded from the changing rooms or toilets of their biological sex, that in our view certainly does impact on their rights..."
Reposted
In fact, the ET said what Peggie was arguing was incompatible with the decision in FWS, where the SC emphasised that their interpretation of sex under the Act would *not* disadvantage trans people.
December 8, 2025 at 3:21 PM
In fact, the ET said what Peggie was arguing was incompatible with the decision in FWS, where the SC emphasised that their interpretation of sex under the Act would *not* disadvantage trans people.
Reposted
Pretty clear! The ET says that the Supreme Court "did not seek to address that question" which was "unsurprising, as it was not the question before it" [790].
Furthermore, the ET said that neither the SC or EA say that certain protected characteristics take precedence over any other [791-795]
Furthermore, the ET said that neither the SC or EA say that certain protected characteristics take precedence over any other [791-795]
December 8, 2025 at 3:21 PM
Pretty clear! The ET says that the Supreme Court "did not seek to address that question" which was "unsurprising, as it was not the question before it" [790].
Furthermore, the ET said that neither the SC or EA say that certain protected characteristics take precedence over any other [791-795]
Furthermore, the ET said that neither the SC or EA say that certain protected characteristics take precedence over any other [791-795]
Reposted
[789] "The question [...] is whether the application of [FWS] must mean that [...] a [trans woman is] required to be excluded from the female changing room, such that the permission given by [her employer] to do so was necessarily unlawful [...] We have concluded that the answer is in the negative."
December 8, 2025 at 3:21 PM
[789] "The question [...] is whether the application of [FWS] must mean that [...] a [trans woman is] required to be excluded from the female changing room, such that the permission given by [her employer] to do so was necessarily unlawful [...] We have concluded that the answer is in the negative."