Nika
@nikavia.bsky.social
This is a) terrible, and b) hugely better than the UK. Not sure what the % is over here - @hleehurley.com probably has a rough idea, at least - but we would kill for fully 30% of all stories about trans rights quoting trans people. And 30% is abysmal! It ought to be 100%!
A new study shows what we know: Journalism is failing on trans rights coverage.
70% of stories about Trump’s executive orders affecting trans people didn’t quote trans people.
They’re talking ABOUT trans people not with them.
Story / study here: www.transjournalists.org/tja-bmsg-exe...
70% of stories about Trump’s executive orders affecting trans people didn’t quote trans people.
They’re talking ABOUT trans people not with them.
Story / study here: www.transjournalists.org/tja-bmsg-exe...
October 16, 2025 at 10:40 PM
This is a) terrible, and b) hugely better than the UK. Not sure what the % is over here - @hleehurley.com probably has a rough idea, at least - but we would kill for fully 30% of all stories about trans rights quoting trans people. And 30% is abysmal! It ought to be 100%!
This is more than just denial of reality; it's an accusation. It's claiming that trans adults are lying about their own childhoods, in order to trick children into transitioning. It's why glinner loves the "groomer" lie. It's a blood libel intended to portray us as a threat that needs to be stopped.
It's worth noting that he is in court for harassing a trans child.
He turned up to court saying his alleged victim does not exist.
He turned up to court saying his alleged victim does not exist.
He is just a piece of trash. This is how Linehan showed up at court today for his harassment trial. Lets face it, he'll never give up in his hate crusade because it's the only thing that keeps him relevant. Stochastic terrorism is a perfect descriptor for what he does.
September 4, 2025 at 12:32 PM
This is more than just denial of reality; it's an accusation. It's claiming that trans adults are lying about their own childhoods, in order to trick children into transitioning. It's why glinner loves the "groomer" lie. It's a blood libel intended to portray us as a threat that needs to be stopped.
"I am not competent to continue a prescription provided by a specialist, order 1-2 blood tests a year, and compare some numbers to reference ranges" is the kind of admission that should lead to a GP being struck off for gross incompetence. And yet!
Charities and medical professionals have warned of a “staggering increase” in GPs denying gender affirming care, even when it is requested by a specialist clinic.
Doctors are claiming they are either not competent to provide the service or they are not contractually obliged 😖
Doctors are claiming they are either not competent to provide the service or they are not contractually obliged 😖
Campaigners warn of ‘staggering increase’ in GPs denying trans care
Mr Lyon had been receiving testosterone treatment for a decade until he moved to a new practice, as more GPs are halting trans care
www.independent.co.uk
August 31, 2025 at 4:17 PM
"I am not competent to continue a prescription provided by a specialist, order 1-2 blood tests a year, and compare some numbers to reference ranges" is the kind of admission that should lead to a GP being struck off for gross incompetence. And yet!
Some good news for trans people for once. Reid is the UN Independent Expert on protection from violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. He was one of the UN experts who criticised the supreme court ruling and urged parliament to act to protect trans rights.
“The UN Human Rights Council voted on Monday to renew the mandate of an LGBT rights expert, a move welcomed by advocates amid the absence of the United States, a former key supporter that is now rolling back such protections.”
Good to see the UN HRC renew independent monitoring of LGBT rights.
🏳️⚧️🏳️🌈
Good to see the UN HRC renew independent monitoring of LGBT rights.
🏳️⚧️🏳️🌈
UN council votes to keep researching abuses for LGBT people despite US U-turn
The U.N. Human Rights Council voted on Monday to renew the mandate of an LGBT rights expert, a move welcomed by advocates amid the absence of the United States, a former key supporter that is now rolling back such protections.
www.reuters.com
July 7, 2025 at 2:52 PM
Some good news for trans people for once. Reid is the UN Independent Expert on protection from violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. He was one of the UN experts who criticised the supreme court ruling and urged parliament to act to protect trans rights.
Even if it were true that reducing suicidal ideation did not reduce actual suicides, having experienced suicidal ideation, I can confirm that it fucking sucks! Reducing it is still very obviously a strongly positive outcome in and of itself.
The "misinformation" in question here is that gender-affirming care reduces suicides among youth. It merely reduces depression, anxiety, self-harm and suicidal ideation.
www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv...
www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archiv...
June 29, 2025 at 4:10 PM
Even if it were true that reducing suicidal ideation did not reduce actual suicides, having experienced suicidal ideation, I can confirm that it fucking sucks! Reducing it is still very obviously a strongly positive outcome in and of itself.
It's also just plain wrong. Three studies found statistically significant reduction in suicidality. The fourth, and smallest, with only 19 subjects in the treatment group, found reductions that fell just short of significance. No competent statistician would describe that as "inconsistent".
Still one of the most insane things I've ever seen in a government report
June 21, 2025 at 8:44 PM
It's also just plain wrong. Three studies found statistically significant reduction in suicidality. The fourth, and smallest, with only 19 subjects in the treatment group, found reductions that fell just short of significance. No competent statistician would describe that as "inconsistent".
IOW, the government thinks it's right and proper that trans people be excluded from "hospitals, refuges and sports clubs", and intend to make sure that stays the case. But don't worry, everyone, they hear our concerns! They're just not going to address them in any substantive way.
Fuck Labour.
Fuck Labour.
June 18, 2025 at 4:05 PM
IOW, the government thinks it's right and proper that trans people be excluded from "hospitals, refuges and sports clubs", and intend to make sure that stays the case. But don't worry, everyone, they hear our concerns! They're just not going to address them in any substantive way.
Fuck Labour.
Fuck Labour.
Reposted by Nika
More of this tone please 😏
June 13, 2025 at 7:24 PM
More of this tone please 😏
This is an excellent article, but I disagree with the excerpt below. In my reading, the supreme court's decision has done far more damage to the Gender Recognition Act than many people have realised, rendering it fundamentally unfit for purpose.
CAVEAT: not a lawyer, this is just my opinion. [1/n]
CAVEAT: not a lawyer, this is just my opinion. [1/n]
June 13, 2025 at 2:10 PM
This is an excellent article, but I disagree with the excerpt below. In my reading, the supreme court's decision has done far more damage to the Gender Recognition Act than many people have realised, rendering it fundamentally unfit for purpose.
CAVEAT: not a lawyer, this is just my opinion. [1/n]
CAVEAT: not a lawyer, this is just my opinion. [1/n]
Well that's a hell of a thing to admit to a tribunal. "No, see, our film was about *spreading* transphobic lies, not *fact-checking* them!"
June 9, 2025 at 4:55 PM
Well that's a hell of a thing to admit to a tribunal. "No, see, our film was about *spreading* transphobic lies, not *fact-checking* them!"
Excellent statement. I particularly liked the fact that they were willing to clearly call out the ruling as transphobic, as well as highlighting the part allowing us to be excluded from both men's and women's spaces simultaneously. And, of course, referencing the ever-fantastic @jessothomson.co.uk
"Women are not physically inferior
versions of men, and our function is not one of broodmares. We repudiate the
equation of women with reproductive function as profoundly misogynistic." UCU women members not messing about in their response to the Supreme Court ruling.
www.ucu.org.uk/media/15028/...
versions of men, and our function is not one of broodmares. We repudiate the
equation of women with reproductive function as profoundly misogynistic." UCU women members not messing about in their response to the Supreme Court ruling.
www.ucu.org.uk/media/15028/...
www.ucu.org.uk
June 8, 2025 at 9:34 AM
Excellent statement. I particularly liked the fact that they were willing to clearly call out the ruling as transphobic, as well as highlighting the part allowing us to be excluded from both men's and women's spaces simultaneously. And, of course, referencing the ever-fantastic @jessothomson.co.uk
"My view is that despite the law being very clear, actually, a few very determined transphobes have crawled their way to the heart of the law like maggots in an apple. A system that has been working perfectly well since 2010 has now been unnecessarily tampered with..."
Hell yes.
Hell yes.
June 7, 2025 at 9:55 PM
"My view is that despite the law being very clear, actually, a few very determined transphobes have crawled their way to the heart of the law like maggots in an apple. A system that has been working perfectly well since 2010 has now been unnecessarily tampered with..."
Hell yes.
Hell yes.
Perhaps that august body could protect its own standing by not throwing people's rights in the bin to suit its own prejudices.
Respect for the court is important, when the court is worthy of that respect. It has breached that social contract, and politicians and legal people should make that clear.
Respect for the court is important, when the court is worthy of that respect. It has breached that social contract, and politicians and legal people should make that clear.
June 5, 2025 at 12:55 PM
Perhaps that august body could protect its own standing by not throwing people's rights in the bin to suit its own prejudices.
Respect for the court is important, when the court is worthy of that respect. It has breached that social contract, and politicians and legal people should make that clear.
Respect for the court is important, when the court is worthy of that respect. It has breached that social contract, and politicians and legal people should make that clear.
Reposted by Nika
Trans people have been excluded from every single step. From Cass. From the Supreme Court. From the EHRC. From politics. From the media. And still, trans people will be blamed when this explodes in everyone's faces despite trans people warning, for years, that this is what would happen.
May 21, 2025 at 2:06 PM
Trans people have been excluded from every single step. From Cass. From the Supreme Court. From the EHRC. From politics. From the media. And still, trans people will be blamed when this explodes in everyone's faces despite trans people warning, for years, that this is what would happen.
Is...is this a thing? Because to my non-lawyer eyes it reads like the kind of transparently sophistic horseshit a debate club nerd throws out when asked to defend an untenable position and is hoping to at least score some points for cleverness. It reads like "the card says Moops" cranked up to 11.
May 21, 2025 at 4:09 PM
Is...is this a thing? Because to my non-lawyer eyes it reads like the kind of transparently sophistic horseshit a debate club nerd throws out when asked to defend an untenable position and is hoping to at least score some points for cleverness. It reads like "the card says Moops" cranked up to 11.
Losing ground to transphobes would hurt ever so slightly less if they weren't all so fucking STUPID.
May 19, 2025 at 1:09 PM
Losing ground to transphobes would hurt ever so slightly less if they weren't all so fucking STUPID.
Just imagine if an MP or a political party were willing to speak this clearly and forcefully in defence of our rights.
We know that the law is not always on the right side of history. The Supreme Court ruling last month does not make public spaces safer for anyone.
May 14, 2025 at 7:18 PM
Just imagine if an MP or a political party were willing to speak this clearly and forcefully in defence of our rights.
This is worth expanding on a bit. It's the logic of conversion therapy. It's the logic of corrective rape. It's saying "we know you better than you know yourself, and we're going to make you conform to our view of you". Seeing it in a supposedly scientific report is absolutely chilling.
"How can you be sure you're a lesbian if you've never been with a guy", but it's the basis of an entire country's healthcare policy.
May 10, 2025 at 5:59 PM
This is worth expanding on a bit. It's the logic of conversion therapy. It's the logic of corrective rape. It's saying "we know you better than you know yourself, and we're going to make you conform to our view of you". Seeing it in a supposedly scientific report is absolutely chilling.
The government explicitly addressed this point during the committee stage. The speaker here is David Lammy, and the word "gender" was clipped off the end of the last sentence. Too many laws to name all of them, and they were of the opinion that the existing text was clear. More fool them, I guess.
May 1, 2025 at 10:23 AM
The government explicitly addressed this point during the committee stage. The speaker here is David Lammy, and the word "gender" was clipped off the end of the last sentence. Too many laws to name all of them, and they were of the opinion that the existing text was clear. More fool them, I guess.
Reposted by Nika
I gave an interview to Al Jazeera on the Supreme Court judgment, and the surrounding context. I think it's possibly the best thing I've ever done (?) so give it a listen.
youtu.be/dhRKIZi60NI?...
youtu.be/dhRKIZi60NI?...
UK court defines 'woman'; trans women left in limbo | The Take
YouTube video by Al Jazeera English
youtu.be
April 25, 2025 at 4:08 PM
I gave an interview to Al Jazeera on the Supreme Court judgment, and the surrounding context. I think it's possibly the best thing I've ever done (?) so give it a listen.
youtu.be/dhRKIZi60NI?...
youtu.be/dhRKIZi60NI?...
More frequent?! PIP reassessments are already every two years, which is a colossally stressful waste of time and energy for most claimants. Assessments also cost money, so this isn't likely to make savings, except by making the process even more miserable and driving people away.
Fuck Labour.
Fuck Labour.
2/ More frequent reassessments of PIP claimants, although most severely disabled will never have to be reassessed & will be eligible for an extra allowance.
3/ Basic rate of UC for those looking for - or in - work, will rise but cut for those judged as unfit for work (as incentive to seek work).
3/ Basic rate of UC for those looking for - or in - work, will rise but cut for those judged as unfit for work (as incentive to seek work).
March 18, 2025 at 1:25 PM
More frequent?! PIP reassessments are already every two years, which is a colossally stressful waste of time and energy for most claimants. Assessments also cost money, so this isn't likely to make savings, except by making the process even more miserable and driving people away.
Fuck Labour.
Fuck Labour.
Reposted by Nika
This is a great poem by Danielle Coffyn.
IF ADAM PICKED THE APPLE
IF ADAM PICKED THE APPLE
October 24, 2024 at 9:52 PM
This is a great poem by Danielle Coffyn.
IF ADAM PICKED THE APPLE
IF ADAM PICKED THE APPLE
Reposted by Nika
VALJEAN
AT LAST
WE SEE EACH OTHER PLAIN
AT LAST
WE SEE EACH OTHER PLAIN
Shot this about a year ago. Evergreen. 🪶
September 28, 2024 at 2:36 PM
VALJEAN
AT LAST
WE SEE EACH OTHER PLAIN
AT LAST
WE SEE EACH OTHER PLAIN
One obvious problem Republicans have here is that many of the arguments SciAm make against Trump apply more or less equally to the party as a whole. They can't very well say "yes, we should absolutely reject candidates who are climate deniers", can they?
60% of this magazine's output now is just variations on "To be fair, the premise of my article is false..."
www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/...
www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/...
September 19, 2024 at 4:18 PM
One obvious problem Republicans have here is that many of the arguments SciAm make against Trump apply more or less equally to the party as a whole. They can't very well say "yes, we should absolutely reject candidates who are climate deniers", can they?
That last screenshot is...just...I'm losing my fucking mind here. "No doubt this hospital is held to a lower standard - but this is largely because they so frequently kill their own patients". THAT'S WORSE, YOU CLOWN.
September 13, 2024 at 2:45 PM
That last screenshot is...just...I'm losing my fucking mind here. "No doubt this hospital is held to a lower standard - but this is largely because they so frequently kill their own patients". THAT'S WORSE, YOU CLOWN.