Transsexual Eve
LightNews LightNews
banner
eve-0.bsky.social
Transsexual Eve
@eve-0.bsky.social
120 followers 350 following 67 posts
This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”
🔞, She/Her, 🏳️‍⚧️🇬🇧 (Unfortunately)
aka, Elizabeth Helene Levick
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by Transsexual Eve
transsomething.bsky.social
I am continually ENRAGED by the way people on the supposedly positive side of these stories are so SLOW to directly counter GC lies. I think they're operating in a years-out-of-date comms environment where they just don't appreciate the need to undermine lies immediately and stop them getting around
August 19, 2025 at 8:30 AM
Reposted by Transsexual Eve
parkesland.bsky.social
Hmm, the original post got deleted. Oh well. Here's a link to the article:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/article...
Trans former judge says Supreme Court gender ruling risks lives
Victoria McCloud, who is planning on challenging the ruling, was accused of alarmism by campaign group Sex Matters.
www.bbc.co.uk
June 8, 2025 at 6:36 AM
Reposted by Transsexual Eve
lollardfish.bsky.social
The hallmark of a moral panic. The complicity of mass media and the decisions about what is and isn’t news, whose voices do and don’t count.
hleehurley.com Lee Hurley @hleehurley.com · Jun 2
2018: Number of times Kathleen Stock, Maya Forstater, Helen Joyce, Fiona McAnena or Sex Matters were mentioned in the papers? Once, and it was Forstater taking about a non-trans subject.
2019: 143
2020: 228
2021: 324
2022: 557
2023: 631
2024: 796
June 2, 2025 at 3:45 PM
Reposted by Transsexual Eve
goodlawproject.org
The Minister who introduced the Gender Recognition Bill in the House of Lords in 2003 made it clear that "a transsexual person would have protection under the Sex Discrimination Act [the predecessor to the Equality Act] as a person of the acquired sex or gender." /1
"On the important issue of discrimination, Clause 9 makes it clear that a transsexual person would have protection under the Sex Discrimination Act as a person of the acquired sex or gender. Once recognition has been granted, they will be able to claim the rights appropriate to that gender."
April 19, 2025 at 6:13 AM
Reposted by Transsexual Eve
evanurquhart.bsky.social
Going through the For Some Women decision, and something I haven't seen mentioned elsewhere is that the court took it upon itself to define lesbians in a way that excludes some cis lesbians and includes some straight trans men.
Accordingly, a person with same sex orientation as a lesbian must be a female who is sexually oriented towards (or attracted to) females, and lesbians as a group are females who share the characteristic of being sexually oriented to females. This is coherent and understandable on a biological understanding of sex. On the other hand, if a GRC under section 9(1) of the GRA 2004 were to alter the meaning of sex under the EA 2010, it would mean that a trans woman (a biological male) with a GRC (so legally female) who remains sexually oriented to other females would become a same sex attracted female, in other words, a lesbian. The concept of sexual orientation towards members of a particular sex in section 12 is rendered meaningless. It would also affect the composition of the groups who share the same sexual orientation (because a trans woman with a GRC and a sexual orientation towards women would fall to be treated as a lesbian) in a similar way as described above in relation to women and girls.
April 16, 2025 at 4:16 PM
Reposted by Transsexual Eve
jessothomson.co.uk
My analysis of today's UK Supreme Court judgment.

The UK Supreme Court Rules That Trans Women Aren't Women Under the Equality Act 2010

www.wearequeeraf.com/uk-supreme-c...
UK Supreme Court Rules That Trans Women Aren’t Women under the Equality Act 2010
The legal definition of a woman in the UK now excludes trans people: This is what it means for Trans+ rights in the country
www.wearequeeraf.com
April 16, 2025 at 3:23 PM
Reposted by Transsexual Eve
ket.bsky.social
i forgot i extracted another example of the exact same thing lol
221. There is nothing in the wording of this provision to indicate that paragraph 28 was directed specifically at those holding a GRC, nor is there any basis for concluding that this is its likely context as the Inner House suggested at para 56. (The example given in the explanatory notes at para 740 also does not distinguish between transexual people with a GRC and those without: "A group counselling session is provided for female victims of sexual assault. The organisers do not allow transsexual people to attend as they judge that the clients who attend the group session are unlikely to do so if a male-to-female transsexual person was also there. This would be lawful"). We can see nothing to support the Inner House's conclusion that "the importance of this paragraph is that it provides the only basis upon which a person might be permitted to exclude a person with a GRC from services which are provided for their acquired sex". Nor is the EHRC correct to assert that paragraph 28 is redundant on a biological interpretation of sex. On the contrary, if sex means biological sex, then provided it is proportionate, the female only nature of the service would engage paragraph 27 and would permit the exclusion of all males including males living in the female gender regardless of GRC status. Moreover, women living in the male gender could also be excluded under paragraph 28 without this amounting to gender reassignment discrimination. This might be considered proportionate where reasonable objection is taken to their presence, for example, because the gender reassignment process has given them a masculine appearance or attributes to which reasonable objection might be taken in the context of the women-only service being provided. Their exclusion would amount to unlawful gender reassignment discrimination not sex discrimination absent this exception.
April 16, 2025 at 12:47 PM
Reposted by Transsexual Eve
ket.bsky.social
i have ten pages left but the whole thing is basically like this, lmao. "we're exiling trans women from society for being men and we're exiling trans men from society for being trans." you guys i found where 4chan migrated to
236. On the other hand, a biological definition of sex would mean that a women’s boxing competition organiser could refuse to admit all men, including trans women regardless of their GRC status. This would be covered by the sex discrimination exception in section 195(1). But if, in addition, the providers of the boxing competition were concerned that fair competition or safety necessitates the exclusion of trans men (biological females living in the male gender, irrespective of GRC status) who have taken testosterone to give them more masculine attributes, their exclusion would amount to gender reassignment discrimination, not sex discrimination, but would be permitted by section 195(2). It is here that the gender reassignment exception would be available to ensure that the exclusion is not unlawful, whether as direct or indirect gender reassignment discrimination.
April 16, 2025 at 10:27 AM
Reposted by Transsexual Eve
bensaufley.com
This puts it so well and I'm torturing myself by thinking about how, for the very reasons enumerated in this short piece, nobody who could make a difference at a major publication will take this piece to heart
**The same men constantly turning to polling the public as evidence of winning ideas are also making all of the decisions regarding what information and which arguments are being presented to that same public**. No self respecting media manager would publish an impassioned argument that the clear sky is actually green, but because conservatives are arguing it, they're happy to publish a similarly ridiculous idea -- like that climate change doesn't exist or that vaccines don't work.
April 8, 2025 at 2:14 AM
Reposted by Transsexual Eve
goatsarah.org
I have used this service.

I tick female.

As do, I suspect, most trans women who use it.

The lecture that accompanies it makes us more, not less, likely to tick female, by the way.
debsnoise.bsky.social Deb's Noise 🇪🇺 🏳️‍🌈 @debsnoise.bsky.social · Mar 13
I totally agree with this thread. This question adds no value beyond pleasing a few Gender Conservatives in NHS/lobby groups. NHS111 does the same, if you answer based upon body sex it works but not for ASAB. Just screws the stats and potentially dangerous. It seems to equate trans with crossdresser
NHS 111 online What was your sex at birth? Female Male This online triage depends on knowing your registered sex at birth, not your gender identity. If you are doing this for someone else, tell us their sex at birth if you know. We need to know this information so we can ask relevant clinical questions. If you feel uncomfortable giving this information, or do not see an option that represents you correctly, you can call 111 to talk to a nurse.
March 13, 2025 at 11:01 AM
Reposted by Transsexual Eve
frasermcqueen.bsky.social
'No-one is talking about young men' increasingly occupies the same space as 'we need an honest conversation about immigration'. We never shut up about young men. It's one of the only things we ever talk about, although admittedly only ever to say 'we need to be more reactionary'.
March 9, 2025 at 1:11 PM
Reposted by Transsexual Eve
mel.bzky.team
the median woman is, as it turns out, sort of just an average looking woman and not in fact a somewhat underweight yet impeccably cheekboned dryad from greek mythology
March 2, 2025 at 3:03 PM
Reposted by Transsexual Eve
gleemie.bsky.social
CBP is detaining german tourist for over 1 mo because they accused her of intending to tattoo for $$ while in US. In jailing her to deport, they held her in solitary for 9 days, also kept her from her return flight Feb 15. She's still jailed.

CoreCivic+CBP ⬆️ 💵

www.kpbs.org/news/border-...
German tourist held indefinitely in San Diego area immigrant detention facility
The young woman had planned to spend a month with a friend in Los Angeles and then fly home to Berlin. But she’s been in federal custody since late January.
www.kpbs.org
March 1, 2025 at 4:07 PM
Reposted by Transsexual Eve
tpwrtrmnky.bsky.social
Christine: No you fool. You imbecile. You dumbass. This is a psychological torture basement for men who can only be fixed by making them not men.

Stef: Yeah and it's a better deal than the NHS so I'm here for it

lmao
tpwrtrmnky.bsky.social Typewriter Monke @tpwrtrmnky.bsky.social · Mar 1
started reading Sisters of Dorley and the initial chapters here are quite something, really looking forward to finding out HOW they arrived at ideologically motivated forcefem as a means of dealing with problem men
March 1, 2025 at 3:30 PM
eve-0.bsky.social
Dorley is amazing, but i always shy away from recommending it to cis people, because to truly get it you need to know about the NHS trans system.

Like, how do you explain to someone that, yes, Stef is right, the forcefem torture basement *is* a better option than the NHS?
tpwrtrmnky.bsky.social Typewriter Monke @tpwrtrmnky.bsky.social · Mar 1
Christine: No you fool. You imbecile. You dumbass. This is a psychological torture basement for men who can only be fixed by making them not men.

Stef: Yeah and it's a better deal than the NHS so I'm here for it

lmao
tpwrtrmnky.bsky.social Typewriter Monke @tpwrtrmnky.bsky.social · Mar 1
started reading Sisters of Dorley and the initial chapters here are quite something, really looking forward to finding out HOW they arrived at ideologically motivated forcefem as a means of dealing with problem men
March 1, 2025 at 5:19 PM
Reposted by Transsexual Eve
erininthemorning.com
Headline: trans girl sets triple jump record

Reality: It's a meet record in division 3. It's not even a sports record or a top division record. It's for a single meet, the kind of record that goes down all the time.

So many such cases of disinformation.
February 25, 2025 at 5:12 PM
eve-0.bsky.social
Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema: Laura Mulvey and the (Marlin) Gaze 🐟
February 21, 2025 at 12:17 PM
eve-0.bsky.social
Grossly impressive how the Telegraph manages to fit;

-Racism against Meghan Markle
-Racism against Palestinians
-20+ paragraphs of transphobia

All on just the front page!
hleehurley.com Lee Hurley @hleehurley.com · Feb 21
The state of the world and this is the front page of today's Telegraph.
Telegraph front page in which the main story is "Trans doctors given clean records"
February 21, 2025 at 10:29 AM
eve-0.bsky.social
A particularly cursed taxonomy:

Fanlore is AFAB kiwifarms for zoomers.

Mumsnet is AFAB kiwifarms for millennials and boomers.
scotsdragon.bsky.social Emma MacFarlane (she/her) @scotsdragon.bsky.social · Feb 21
Fanlore is just AFAB Kiwifarms.
February 21, 2025 at 10:16 AM
Reposted by Transsexual Eve
hleehurley.com
She stood up when a grant was given to the LGB Alliance, GC colleagues complained about her, she was dismissed, then she won her case for unfair dismissal.
Arts Council faces payout over trans row Organisation’s diversity chief who likened gendercritical beliefs to racism wins unfair dismissal case The Daily Telegraph20 Feb 2025By Telegraph Reporter AN ARTS COUNCIL diversity manager investigated after she compared gender critical beliefs to racism has won a payout for unfair dismissal. Afreena Islam-wright became upset after a grant was awarded to the LGB Alliance, a campaign group founded to oppose the policies of LGBT rights charity Stonewall on transgender issues. She said she would “feel terrified” if co-workers were making “openly racist statements” and “can’t imagine” what transgender colleagues were going through at finding out about the grant. An employment tribunal heard the “hasty, ill-informed and ill-thought” comments upset staff who held gender-critical views, meaning they believe biological sex cannot be changed, and she was taken to a disciplinary meeting. She has now successfully sued Arts Council England (ACE) for unfair dismissal after the tribunal found she had made the comments because she was “motivated solely” to support transgender and non-binary colleagues. The hearing in Manchester was told Mrs Islam-wright began working for the arts organisation as a diversity relationship manager in September 2020. In April 2022 an organisation called the London Community Foundation awarded a grant out of ACE funding it had been given to the organisation LGB Alliance. The tribunal heard that although ACE was not involved in the funding decision it faced criticism, internally and externally.
February 20, 2025 at 8:44 AM
eve-0.bsky.social
I did a write up of the issues and drama stemming from this piece.

The general take away is: Don't write about a minority without consulting that minority.

(Well, that and don't post on an official account while tilted.)

medium.com/@ElizabethLe...
February 16, 2025 at 3:28 PM
eve-0.bsky.social
On The Lemkin Institute’s social media tantrum, Trans Genocide, and Transmisogyny:

medium.com/@ElizabethLe...
On The Lemkin Institute’s social media tantrum, Trans Genocide, and Transmisogyny
On February 14, 2025, the Lemkin Institute published a now deleted article, titled “Red Flag Alert for the Anti-Trans Agenda of the Trump…
medium.com
February 16, 2025 at 3:21 PM
Reposted by Transsexual Eve
liverpoolcomrade.bsky.social
This is a bit fucking rich coming from The Guardian.

The very paper that shoved transphobia down our throats for years in the interests of "balance" and "hearing from all sides" is now pretending that they were never part of that moral panic and they saw through it immediately.

Yeah...right.
From banning books to policing words Thanks to the intolerant left, nobody can say the word “women” anymore! Do you remember when that was a major talking point in certain quarters? Prominent columnists wrote endless pieces declaring that the word “women” had “become verboten”. The thought police, these people claimed, were forcing everyone to say “bodies with vaginas” and “menstruators” instead. Even the likes of Margaret Atwood tweeted articles with headlines like: “Why can’t we say ‘woman’ anymore?” That, of course, was complete nonsense. While there was certainly a push for more inclusive language, nobody with any influence was trying to ban the word “women”. Now, however? Now, it’s a very different story. Thanks to Donald Trump’s sweeping executive orders attacking “gender ideology” and DEI programs, the word “women” – along with a number of other terms – is quite literally being erased. The likes of Nasa have been busy scrubbing mentions of terms related to women in leadership from public websites in an attempt to comply with Trump’s executive orders, for example. Agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have taken down numerous webpages related to gender in the wake of Trump’s orders – although a federal judged ordered on Tuesday that they should be reinstated.
February 15, 2025 at 11:29 PM