Julia G
LightNews LightNews
banner
julialynne.bsky.social
Julia G
@julialynne.bsky.social
340 followers 370 following 600 posts
Union General Secretary and trans woman. 🏳️‍⚧️Activist, wife and maths student.
I’m too old for this sort of stuff!
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by Julia G
parkesland.bsky.social
Pleased to be interviewed for this much needed piece on the rising transphobia in higher education.

www.timeshighereducation.com/news/trans-s...

(Archive link: archive.is/oYqXS)
Trans scholars being ‘pushed out of academia’, researchers warn
Universities ‘afraid to be trans inclusive’ after Supreme Court ruling and OfS Sussex fine, leaving staff fearing ‘hostile environment’
www.timeshighereducation.com
December 15, 2025 at 8:34 AM
julialynne.bsky.social
💯 this 👇🏻

Not complying with exclusionary rules will allegedly be against the law, but subject to no policing. Complying will definitely be against the law.

The law is an ass.

Do not impose exclusion and change the law to avoid removing human rights from trans, NB and GNC people.
kirsty-mctear.bsky.social Kirsty McTear @kirsty-mctear.bsky.social · 13h
THOUGHT FOR THE DAY

We with GRCs had to make a statutory declaration and swear an oath that we “intend to live in that gender until death”.

We cannot do that by using inappropriate facilities.

Unlike some politicians with with flexible integrities, we intend to abide by our oaths.🏳️‍⚧️

#TRANSRIGHTS
December 15, 2025 at 8:04 AM
Reposted by Julia G
alicemydaughter.bsky.social
And whenever they write about Bell they always describe her as the person who sued the Tavistock and it was then closed down, whilst neglecting to mention that she lost, but NHSEngland took away gender affirming care off the back of it anyway. Because they wanted to.
December 15, 2025 at 7:38 AM
Reposted by Julia G
robinince.bsky.social
Thank you all for your support
December 14, 2025 at 6:53 PM
Reposted by Julia G
carlyasilvers.bsky.social
Dr Mary-Ann Stephenson is going to have a very big surprise when she realises trans people won't cooperate with their own segregation by the EHRC's unenforceable rules.
December 14, 2025 at 9:26 AM
Reposted by Julia G
reactiveashley.bsky.social
This is absolutely disgusting. Stephenson still believes proselytising to remove human rights should be tolerated at work.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/article...
Equality boss expects people to 'follow rules' over single-sex spaces
Dr Mary-Ann Stephenson said
www.bbc.co.uk
December 13, 2025 at 9:34 PM
Reposted by Julia G
stephaniejane.bsky.social
Exactly. We signed up to the declaration to live as women for the rest of our lives, and failure to fulfil that legally binding oath could result in criminal prosecution.
I will be adhering to my legal commitments.
December 14, 2025 at 9:57 AM
Reposted by Julia G
goodlawproject.org
Bridget Phillipson knew her history, was told by MPs not to appoint her, insisted on appointing her, and in her first interview the Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission has ignored super clear and explicit human rights law that trans people are not a third sex. What a disgrace.
December 14, 2025 at 7:47 AM
Reposted by Julia G
goodlawproject.org
It's not illegal to use the right toilets and no one should adhere to Mary-Ann Stephenson's headmistressly call to "follow rules" that serve no good purpose, breach the UK's human rights obligations, will be bad for all women, and debase trans dignity. Make her appoint her sodding toilet police.
December 14, 2025 at 8:09 AM
Reposted by Julia G
lyra-scotland.bsky.social
"One parent told me that she was hearing reports of Dr Hillary Cass (of the Cass Review) teaching staff at NHS Sussex on how to detransition trans children."

A proper piece of Journalism looking into the horrors of NHS Sussex. Great Work @sophiemolly.co.uk

northwestbylines.co.uk/opinion-corn...
Giving a voice to the voiceless – A trans woman investigates
How and why I investigated what is going on with the treatment of trans children in Sussex, and how if affects the children, their families and me
northwestbylines.co.uk
December 12, 2025 at 5:20 PM
Reposted by Julia G
gftuwinwin.bsky.social
🏨🎄 Planning a getaway, meeting, or festive event? Book with purpose at the @gftuet.org.uk's Workers' Retreat.

🙌 Stay, dine, or host at Quorn Grange Hotel.

✨ Each booking helps fund the Trust's crucial work - https://www.quorngrangehotel.co.uk/

#GFTUWinWin #GFTUET #QGH
A view of a beautiful hotel in a lush garden, partially framed by overhanging tree branches. A cozy room featuring a blazing fire in an ornate fireplace, adorned with a decorative mirror, a vintage clock, and hanging greenery. Exterior view of a traditional stone building, featuring a neatly landscaped garden with a stone path leading to outdoor seating areas under white umbrellas. A serene garden scene featuring manicured lawns, symmetrical hedge rows, and a central white gazebo under a clear blue sky.
December 12, 2025 at 3:59 PM
Reposted by Julia G
reformexposed.bsky.social
Reform UK animal lovers, will you be joining your leader at the hunt?
December 12, 2025 at 3:26 PM
Reposted by Julia G
natacha.bsky.social
A decade ago trans people warned this would happen.

The “gender-critical” transphobes have opened the door to a much wider attack on women’s rights, including on safe and legal abortion, birth control…

I even managed to get this published in @opendemocracy.net in 2022
Through the wedge issue of transphobia, self-identified gender-critical 'feminists' have opened the door for the far-right's homophobia and misogyny. After investing all this money, are they really going to stop at just harming trans people?
December 12, 2025 at 3:56 AM
Reposted by Julia G
emiliab.bsky.social
#UK #Transrights #NHS Imagine the hypocrisy at play for the government to publish this policy paper after making every effort to ensure the opposite is applied to gender dysphoria patients. I really have no words for this.
www.gov.uk/government/p...
December 11, 2025 at 6:54 PM
Reposted by Julia G
labourunionsuk.bsky.social
Opposition Lords are STILL voting to water down key measures in the Employment Rights Bill - risking delaying rights like access to Sick Pay from Day 1.
The Lords must get out of the way and let the Bill pass, so we can deliver the new rights working people need.
www.labourunions.org.uk/stoptheblock
December 10, 2025 at 6:49 PM
Reposted by Julia G
racheltaylormp.bsky.social
1/ You wouldn’t know it from the coverage, but two recent employment tribunal rulings have vindicated those of us who have said from the start that the Supreme Court judgment did not require the automatic exclusion of trans people from single-sex toilets and changing rooms. 🧵
December 11, 2025 at 10:12 AM
Reposted by Julia G
racheltaylormp.bsky.social
4/ It was also ruled that aggressively challenging trans women using female facilities is harassment. Anti-trans campaigners' baseless claims that trans women pose a greater risk to women in changing areas or toilets than that posed by cis women were also rejected.
December 11, 2025 at 10:12 AM
Reposted by Julia G
lgbwiththet.bsky.social
December 9, 2025 at 6:26 PM
Reposted by Julia G
lgbtiqagreens.bsky.social
We were promised a draft bill on banning conversion practices by the end of 2025 and it's mid-December with no movement.

This government *must* commit to a trans-inclusive ban, especially following a report by the BBC into practices fifty years ago.
A pink background with two women holding hands. Photo by Anna Shvets. In the foreground you see the following title: "Labour must ban conversion practices", and a subtitle of: "A recent BBC documentary has aired that shows the scale and the horrors of conversion practises in the '60s and '70s.". In the bottom right corner you see the LGBTIQA+ Greens logo and in the bottom left corner is the imprint: Promoted by LGBTIQA+ Greens, c/o PO Box 78066, London SE16 9GQ On a white background with a pink cross in the middle you see a statement. The statement is as follows: Conversion practises are abuse. They must be banned. A recent BBC documentary has been released - "Shock Therapy", which documents the abuse by the NHS of LGBTIQA+ youth back in the '60s and '70s. The series reveals that shock "therapy" was used against LGBTIQA+ people in the 1960s and 1970s as a way to try and "cure" people of their sexual orientation or gender identity. At least 250 people were subject to this treatment in 1974 alone. It was reported at the time that those who are now survivors of conversion practises took part of their own accord, but survivors and historians are now questioning whether genuine consent was ever given. Many have said that the consent sought would not stand up to modern ethical standards surrounding medical consent and treatment. The government must issue a formal apology to those who experienced this awful treatment, while there are still survivors around to hear that apology. In 2025, people are still subjected to conversion practises. Some operate under the guise of religion or culture, while some still remain deeply ingrained within the NHS. The services replacing GIDS pathologize trans youth and impose barriers to care, which are conversion practises in all but name. For a decade, governments have promised to end conversion practises. In 2025 the Labour government promised a draft bill by the end of the year. It's yet to appear. A ban on conversion practises must now happen, and be trans-inclusive. It's clear now, 50 years later what harms these practises have had on its survivors. We must learn from history, and we must let it guide us on how we approach policy on LGBTIQA+ people. We must not let the current culture war stand in the way of doing something fundamentally good. We owe it to survivors to finish what was promised: ban conversion practises.
December 9, 2025 at 6:42 PM
Reposted by Julia G
humanrightsvicky.bsky.social
TEN sends open letter to Women's Institute over its new Gender Critical Ideology. It mentions Peggie v Fife (eg the findings that Dr Upton was the one harassed, it was correct not to exclude her, that a trans woman poses no more threat to a cis woman than a cis woman does). Attached.
December 9, 2025 at 5:35 PM
Reposted by Julia G
goodlawproject.org
She won her case like you won the general election.
December 8, 2025 at 5:36 PM
Reposted by Julia G
reactiveashley.bsky.social
The Times, Telegraph, Mail, and other newspapers have been more accurate than the BBC in their reporting of the Sandie Peggie case. This raises the question of why the BBC appears to take such an intensely ideological and transphobic stance, far beyond commercial motives.
December 9, 2025 at 5:39 PM
Reposted by Julia G
mimmymum.bsky.social
Remember when Helen Joyce was called out as "not an expert" by Australian courts - Now Maya Forstater has been told the same in the Peggie judgment! 👏👏👏

The judgement states outright that the evidence submitted by her & Sex Matters was “not skilled evidence.”

This is the Tribunal’s exact wording!
Highlighted paragraph: Evidence from Ms Forstater and Mx Valentine 1038. We turn to address the evidence from Ms Forstater and Mx Valentine, which the parties had described as “research evidence”. That is not, so far as we are aware, a term of law. Nothing was cited to support the use of that term. It is not skilled evidence as explained below, and the parties did not suggest that either witness was skilled or expert in that sense. It was not necessarily inadmissible, given the terms of Rule 41, and until read and considered the extent to which it might be relevant could not be assessed, but the weight to attach to it was a different consideration Highlighted sections: 1040. In many respects the evidence in the statements was more in the nature of material for the public debate on wider issues as to what the law should be, and on occasion it appeared to us to be polemic, rather than evidence relevant to the issues at an Employment Tribunal. 1041. Opinion evidence was addressed in Walker and Walker on Evidence, Fifth Edition (“Walker”), which explained the distinction between evidence of fact, and of belief or opinion. Opinion evidence may be led from what Walker describes as an ordinary witness (the classification of witnesses is between ordinary and skilled), and examples of that are given. Ms Forstater 1042. 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. 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. It was contradicted by other evidence, and the terms of a Note issued by EJ Tinnion on 5 January 2025 in relation to the second respondent. It did not appear to be an assertion related to the second respondent in particular, but as a more general proposition. 1043. The assertion at (d) had a further series of propositions which were opinions although presented as facts. If the 1992 Regulations, then as discussed they are not within this Tribunal’s jurisdiction, and the comment appears to be an argument over the policy of the law, or how the law should be interpreted, neither of which are relevant evidence before us. 1044. The sub-paragraphs include, by way of example, (ii) “women are in general more fearful of men than men … Highlighted sections: That is again an expression of opinion without cross reference to any document in the Supplementary Bundle. Sub-paragraph (v) was “unless rules about single-sex spaces are clearly stated and enforced it leaves women open to risk of sexual harassment and assault, and makes these spaces feel unsafe.” That again is an expression of opinion. The witness statement purports to expand on the comments at paragraph 10 stating that the facts stated are true. In our view they are not reliable as evidence from a person not a skilled witness on the propositions that are advanced. 1045. Where there was reference to documentation it is in our view both partial and incomplete. Part of it is based on research undertaken by Sex Matters, an organisation of which she is the Chief Executive Officer. It is a campaigning organisation, as set out in paragraph 4. There is an obvious risk that that research is impacted by the nature of it, which is not suggested to be an independent academic study .... In our view it would not be dealing with a case fairly or justly to rely on expressions of opinion from a person campaigning on one side of the argument on such an issue. We did not consider that the case of Connor on which the claimant founded, cited above and which indicated that in some situations evidence which was not expert in nature could be sufficient, was applicable to such a matter. 1047. Our review of the literature referred to by Ms Forstater reveals that the broad generalisations she seeks to take from it are not sufficiently supported by the document or document founded on, both from the terms of the document and the other documents in relation to the same broad issue, to be treated as reliable evidence.
December 9, 2025 at 10:36 AM
Reposted by Julia G
mimmymum.bsky.social
The Tribunal’s findings on Sex Matters and Forstater are crystal clear:

• Not skilled evidence
• Not expert
• Not impartial
• Not reliable
• Polemic rather than evidence
• Material that could not support findings of fact

So why are UK news media & politicians listening to them!!??
December 9, 2025 at 10:36 AM
julialynne.bsky.social
Read the article for free by seeing @ginagwenffrewi.bsky.social reply
December 9, 2025 at 7:49 PM