sofia
LightNews LightNews
banner
solidarityqueer.bsky.social
sofia
@solidarityqueer.bsky.social
470 followers 1.2K following 2.1K posts
chronically disappointed optimist 🫩

vote green 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 | 🏳️‍⚧️ she/her
Posts Replies Media Videos
Pinned
solidarityqueer.bsky.social
sofia @solidarityqueer.bsky.social · 17d
this really hurt. 💔
Reposted by sofia
thechiller.bsky.social
Dear Martin Green: fuck off.
December 11, 2025 at 12:21 PM
Reposted by sofia
aidancomerford.bsky.social
I would encourage people in the UK to complain to the BBC about unquestioning platforming a person who uses transphobic slurs on trans healthcare.

If they do not get a satisfactory response, escalate the complaint to Ofcom.

www.bbc.com/news/article...
December 11, 2025 at 11:36 AM
solidarityqueer.bsky.social
This is traumatising to read as a trans person, but of course, they know that.
hleehurley.com Lee Hurley @hleehurley.com · 4h
It just never stops
Daily Mail front page - Stop Labour’s ‘grotesque’ puberty drug experiment on children Top Tory calls trial on 220 children ‘chemical castration’ as campaigners launch bid to halt it Double page spread in Daily Mail with 3 articles: 1 - "It is disgusting that we're again putting the young on these drygs" featuring Keira Bell 2 - This is nothing less that the state sanctioned chemical castration of children - by Claire Coutinho 3 - No lower age limit on those joining blocker trial
December 11, 2025 at 12:02 PM
Reposted by sofia
reactiveashley.bsky.social
🫠
A chart of Brexit voter change
December 11, 2025 at 10:20 AM
solidarityqueer.bsky.social
I bought her latest book three times btw.

Support trans creatives! 💕
December 10, 2025 at 11:56 PM
Reposted by sofia
dannyvanread.bsky.social
Wouldn’t it be nice if govt actually talked to trans people rather than base policy on 12 bigots and a billionaire?
December 10, 2025 at 7:52 PM
solidarityqueer.bsky.social
Knowing Sharon Davies will now be paid like £300 per day for life, purely due to how obsessed she is with destroying trans rights, is yet another devastating thing about existing in the UK.
December 10, 2025 at 10:13 PM
Reposted by sofia
taliabhatt.itch.io
I sort of wish y'all took this more seriously, because this attitude is a reinforcement of heterosexuality as a hierarchy. It's an acknowledgement and understanding that it's not enough to "be with" a woman, or even to father children.

They define manhood as exploitation, abuse, and dominance.
cerberusxt.bsky.social CerberusXt @cerberusxt.bsky.social · 1d
"Everything straight is actually gay" is my favourite kind of ragebait posts by these morons.
December 10, 2025 at 11:50 AM
solidarityqueer.bsky.social
Cis women allies who constantly complain about cosmetic surgery/procedures is so unsettling for me. They’re almost certainly never thinking about GAC when complaining about it, but… 😬
December 10, 2025 at 1:22 PM
Reposted by sofia
natacha.bsky.social
The only person to come out of the SPeggie/NHS tribunal vindicated and with a completely untarnished reputation is Dr Beth Upton.

Not SPeggie,
Not the NHS management,
Not Four Women Scotland,
Not the media,

Just Dr Upton.
December 9, 2025 at 11:12 AM
Reposted by sofia
runningdog.bsky.social
It’s striking how clearly western governments are trying to harden up their electorates for the effects of half the world being on fire or underwater, but they can’t say that in public so they’re all like Guys we just thought it’d be nice to change some laws a bit because reasons
theguardian.com The Guardian @theguardian.com · 1d
Starmer urges Europe’s leaders to update ECHR to halt rise of far right
Starmer urges Europe’s leaders to update ECHR to halt rise of far right
Exclusive: PM calls for members of European convention on human rights to allow tougher action to protect borders * We must protect our borders to defend our democracies – and that means the ECHR must change Keir Starmer has called on European leaders to urgently update joint human rights laws so that member states can take tougher action to protect their borders and see off the rise of the populist right across the continent. Before a crucial European summit on Wednesday, the prime minister urged fellow members to “go further” in modernising the European convention on human rights (ECHR) to prevent asylum seekers using it to avoid deportation. Continue reading...
www.theguardian.com
December 9, 2025 at 8:47 PM
Reposted by sofia
prettyqueerthing.bsky.social
The brain rot around trans people, especially in the uk, is insane. The UK has so much hate in it it makes America look like Disneyland, and we fucking suck.
December 10, 2025 at 10:37 AM
Reposted by sofia
hleehurley.com
"You must vote for this person who will make your life worse, because if you don't my life might get worse" is a thing people are just out there saying every single day like they're the rational ones.
December 9, 2025 at 9:20 PM
solidarityqueer.bsky.social
Stuff like this is why I can no longer stomach watching the Scottish parliament anymore. 😣
December 9, 2025 at 11:20 PM
solidarityqueer.bsky.social
Gay Glaswegian artist just this week, talking about journalists’ homophobia (shock horror that the article is from Piers Morgan, one of the most famous current transphobes)
December 9, 2025 at 10:03 PM
Reposted by sofia
moh-kohn.bsky.social
@neiltosh.bsky.social coverage by the @dailyrecord.co.uk of the Sandy Peggie case is identical to how your paper treated gay people. We will remember. One day, sooner than you think, people will look at your work and think "how could people be so cruel back then?" You should live to see it.
December 9, 2025 at 10:54 AM
Reposted by sofia
cherylmorgan.bsky.social
Looking forward to Starmer ordering the arrest of 80% of the UK population on terrorism charges.
December 9, 2025 at 8:59 PM
Reposted by sofia
scotnational.bsky.social
Harassment, 'untruthful' evidence, and 'unusual' legal questions. Our reporter Xander Elliards looks at nine points from the Sandie Peggie ruling that the rest of the media has left out
December 9, 2025 at 5:46 PM
Reposted by sofia
markgrimshawtism.bsky.social
I do think it’s worth noting that, on the day that a damning review into the state of NHS maternity care has been released, the big issue that gender critical self-titled “feminists” seem to have with the NHS is that the specific board in Fife just isn’t transphobic enough to staff for their liking.
December 9, 2025 at 7:24 PM
Reposted by sofia
sloanelysbeth.bsky.social
sloane lysbeth @sloanelysbeth.bsky.social • 4d most liberals are fine with fascism. they're just angry that conservatives got there first.
December 9, 2025 at 8:47 PM
Reposted by sofia
goodlawproject.org
She won her case like you won the general election.
December 8, 2025 at 5:36 PM
Reposted by sofia
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 sofia
mimmymum.bsky.social
Dear businesses,

If you get a threatening letter from anti-trans lobby group ‘Sex Matters’ trying to scare you into banning trans people under threat of legal action - ignore them!

Time and again they get embarrassed in court while cos-playing at being ‘experts’!

You don’t want to foot the bill!😬
mimmymum.bsky.social Helen 🏳️‍⚧️✊🏻💕 @mimmymum.bsky.social · 2d
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 6:30 PM
solidarityqueer.bsky.social
I adore @diabolicallies.skystack.xyz 😍

And this is a point we should continue to repeat every time identity politics is mentioned!
December 9, 2025 at 6:15 PM
Reposted by sofia
robertbohan.bsky.social
Anti-trans tulip corrected by the judge: "The idea that Mr B is being imprisoned because of his religious beliefs is nonsense. This court does not imprison people for their religious beliefs. Mr B is being imprisoned because he is trespassing on other people's property. No more. No less."
Judge rejects Enoch Burke's 'errors' claims after family members removed from High Court
The judge said: 'Mr Burke is being imprisoned because he is trespassing on other people's property. No more. No less.'
www.irishexaminer.com
December 9, 2025 at 4:05 PM