BLACK13
LightNews LightNews
banner
black13.bsky.social
BLACK13
@black13.bsky.social
250 followers 360 following 630 posts
Reader, gamer, dreamer, trans
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by BLACK13
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
Reposted by BLACK13
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 · 8h
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
Reposted by BLACK13
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 BLACK13
kirsty-mctear.bsky.social
DISGUSTING BBC…

According to the BBC, describing a trans-woman as “a biological male who identifies as a woman”, is intended to be clear and explanatory and easily understood by a wide audience.

Looks like the slur is an official policy then doesn’t it.

#TRANSAPARTHEID #TRANSERASURE #TRANSRIGHTS
December 9, 2025 at 2:26 PM
Reposted by BLACK13
marcusjdl.bsky.social
You’d never know this was what was decided as part of that tribunal ruling…
But Ms Peggie's claims of discrimination and victimisation by NHS Fife did not succeed and were dismissed. • The tribunal also dismissed the claims which were made against Dr Upton.
December 9, 2025 at 8:27 AM
Reposted by BLACK13
hern.bsky.social
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”
December 8, 2025 at 4:10 PM
Reposted by BLACK13
goodlawproject.org
Remember: the EHRC's Interim Guidance, and we understand the draft statutory guidance too, recommended a trans bathroom ban. Two tribunals have now disagreed.
goodlawproject.org Jolyon Maugham KC @goodlawproject.org · 1d
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
Reposted by BLACK13
dhothersall.bsky.social
Staggering to watch pretty much every news outlet in the country report that Sandy Peggie has won her tribunal case despite her losing on almost every count, and despite the ruling stating that the Supreme Court FWS judgement does *not* require trans women to be excluded from women's spaces.
December 8, 2025 at 1:54 PM
Reposted by BLACK13
ameresolicitor.bsky.social
All the claims against Dr. Beth Upton failed.

She’s entirely vindicated and her evidence was found more reliable.

Let’s see if a single paper actually represents that fairly…
December 8, 2025 at 3:03 PM
Reposted by BLACK13
foxdie.bsky.social
The dogshit BBC reporting is calling the EHRC code of practice the "European human rights code".

Complete rookie error, shows absolutely 0 knowledge of appropriate area of law.

Impartiality obviously means you have to not be familiar with the subject before you speak!
Screenshot from BBC article on the NHS fife case. It reads Part of their case was that Dr Upton was following the European Human Rights code of practice at the time - which said people should use facilities matching their acquired gender.
December 8, 2025 at 3:08 PM
Reposted by BLACK13
goodlawproject.org
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.
632. A wider aspect of evidence we considered concerned an attack on her position in cross examination to the effect that she was generally transphobic, which she denied both when giving evidence initially and on recall (which is addressed further below). Some of the messages she sent are indicative of views which could be described as trans-phobic. In one dated 10 January 2024 the claimant described the second respondent as “it”. In an earlier part of the same message there is reference to the second respondent having a shadow (being in our view a reference to the appearance of stubble on the face) and a “pathetic voice”. These are disparaging remarks in relation to the second respondent in our view, because of the second respondent being a trans woman. 633. In another the second respondent is described as a “weirdo”, which the claimant sought to explain as someone acting weirdly, but which we did not accept as being what she had intended by use of that word. These remarks we consider to be consistent with other evidence of her making comments the second respondent was liable to find offensive that went beyond the simple expression of a gender critical belief, but amounted to personal attacks on the second respondent.
December 8, 2025 at 2:46 PM
Reposted by BLACK13
goodlawproject.org
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.
631. The third aspect was her evidence given when recalled in relation to a message she had passed on to her group of friends which related to floods in Pakistan in the most highly offensive terms. She initially described the messages as “dark humour”. Her evidence later was that the message had been sent to provoke a reaction, in broad summary. We did not consider that latter evidence to be credible given the content of the message sent and her initial evidence about it. In our view it was an untruthful attempt to downplay what she had done, which she recognised as having included very offensive material. We consider that it was clear beyond serious argument that the author or authors of the original message considered the remarks humorous, and that the claimant had also considered them humorous which was why she had passed them on. That was supported in our view by her reference to dark humour
December 8, 2025 at 2:34 PM
Reposted by BLACK13
goodlawproject.org
This is a real disaster for those - pretty much the entirety of the British media - advancing a maximalist reading of the For (Some) Women Scotland decision.
796. Thirdly, the claimant’s contention was in our view not consistent with the court’s comment that “we have concluded that a biological sex interpretation would not have the effect of disadvantaging or removing important protection under the EA 2010 from trans people (whether with or without a GRC).” 797. After that comment the court explained that a person with gender reassignment as a protected characteristic could pursue a claim of direct or indirect discrimination, or of harassment, if the circumstances so warranted. There was no qualification to it to the effect that that was not applicable in, for example, the context of a single sex space under Part 5 of the Act. If their decision had been that 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, and may also be excluded from the changing rooms or toilets of their biological sex, that in our view certainly does impact on their rights under section 7. 798. Were the claimant’s contention to be correct that would have the effect of materially reducing the extent to which that protected characteristic could be relied on by trans persons, to their disadvantage. What was desired by the trans person when living their life may not be permitted in a large number of practical instances, and would not have been consistent with the view expressed by Lady Hale in Work and Pensions, and the line of authority in relation to human rights. Such a construction in our view would also not be consistent with the interpretation of the Equal Treatment Directive from the CJEU and its predecessor as referred to above, which remains as assimilated law, and would not be consistent with a purposive interpretation still required. The development of the law in relation to what is now the protected characteristic of gender reassignment is set out above. At the very least we would have expected these considerations to have been addressed speci…
December 8, 2025 at 2:24 PM
Reposted by BLACK13
goodlawproject.org
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...
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
Reposted by BLACK13
kirsty-mctear.bsky.social
But the wierdo “Gender Criticals” don‘t want to talk about this…

PLEASE SHARE WIDELY, Especially to transphobes.

www.planetrans.org/2025/04/anti....
Anti-Trans Activist Nicola Murray Found Guilty of Child Abuse
Nicola Murray who benefited monetarily from Scotland's "Let Women Speak" was found guilty of child abuse and listed as a child predator.
www.planetrans.org
December 8, 2025 at 7:34 AM
Reposted by BLACK13
markhamillofficial.bsky.social
Spot on, Mr. Rather. 🎯 💯
December 7, 2025 at 4:21 PM
Reposted by BLACK13
natacha.bsky.social
PSA…
December 7, 2025 at 11:56 AM
Reposted by BLACK13
reactiveashley.bsky.social
😕
www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...
Girlguiding volunteers brutally quit after 'heartbreaking' trans kids ruling
Girlguiding faces a volunteer exodus as members resign over the ban on trans girls and young women. Members say the exclusion betrays the charity’s core ethos of inclusivity
www.mirror.co.uk
December 6, 2025 at 4:35 PM
black13.bsky.social
It's getting ridiculous now trans women banned from a Dead by Daylight tournament, what fucking advantage do they have?
December 6, 2025 at 10:08 AM
Reposted by BLACK13
calumalexanderwatt.bsky.social
Drawing is easy.

Coming to terms with the results is the hard part.
December 5, 2025 at 11:50 AM
Reposted by BLACK13
foxdie.bsky.social
Please ask in parliament why Wes Streeting is continuing to consult with a group who openly promote conversion therapy and don't raise safeguarding concerns around blcokogm access to childlike or putting irritants in their teenagers make up!

transsafety.network/posts/wes-st...
Wes Streeting continues to ignore safeguarding concerns about parents group linked to abusive practices
Trans Safety Network has seen evidence Wes Streeting and the DHSC solicited feedback on a “puberty blocker risk form” from Bayswater Support Group and other anti-trans groups in September 2025, 6 mont...
transsafety.network
December 5, 2025 at 7:44 PM
Reposted by BLACK13
kirstimiller30.bsky.social
A sport that chooses exclusion as the default have the burden of proof. They have to have the science to show a TW has unfair disparities in strength, speed, endurance &/or physique depending on the sport. The @UCI_cycling just lost a case because they couldn't prove this.
December 6, 2025 at 4:15 AM
Reposted by BLACK13
peterstefanovic.bsky.social
This is no way to treat our veterans Prime Minister.

It’s now over two months since the PM agreed on BBCBreakfast to meet with the nuclear test veterans (having kept them waiting more than a year to discuss the justice & compensation Labour committed to in opposition)

youtu.be/hSQNLn2Ocr8?...
Video emerges of Deputy PM,Defence Secretary & other Ministers BACKING compensation for Nuclear Vets
YouTube video by Peter Stefanovic
youtu.be
December 5, 2025 at 9:35 PM
Reposted by BLACK13
heatherherbert.uk
GB News pays damages to Islamic Relief over false allegations share.google/y92pPzkEkyM1...
GB News pays damages to Islamic Relief over false allegations
share.google
December 5, 2025 at 10:02 PM
Reposted by BLACK13
darkeden21.bsky.social
Imagine the UK courts being as committed to Justice as the Australian courts lol

There are people who are harassing trans women here in the UK who are being funded for it, not fined for it.
December 5, 2025 at 11:42 AM