Nicola 🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️
LightNews LightNews
banner
nicclesb.bsky.social
Nicola 🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️
@nicclesb.bsky.social
1K followers 2K following 1.5K posts
If someone tries to rain on your parade, poke them in the eye with your umbrella.

Trans Rights Are Human Rights
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by Nicola 🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️
glitterbeamuk.bsky.social
“I’m not becoming a woman, I’m giving up pretending to be a man”

New York-based Pastor Phillippa Phaneuf comes out as a trans woman in a moving service.
December 10, 2025 at 6:22 AM
nicclesb.bsky.social
BBC News - www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cj...
Turner Prize 2025: Sculpture artist Nnena Kalu wins coveted Turner Prize - BBC News
Turner Prize 2025: Sculpture artist Nnena Kalu wins coveted Turner Prize
Kalu's brightly-coloured hanging sculptures and her drawings of swirling, tornado-like patterns earned her short list nomination.
www.bbc.co.uk
December 9, 2025 at 8:51 PM
Reposted by Nicola 🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️
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 · 23h
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 Nicola 🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️
samvimes6.bsky.social
Fuentes is a horrible human being.
thetnholler.bsky.social The Tennessee Holler @thetnholler.bsky.social · 20h
PIERS: “You’re not gay?”
FUENTES: “No. But women are very difficult to be around.”
P: “Should they vote?”
F: “No.”
PIERS: “They should stay home?”
FUENTES: “Yeah.”
PIERS: “So you’re just a misogynistic dinosaur. Have you ever had sex?”
FUENTES: “No.”
PIERS: “Wow. Says the guy who never got laid.”
December 9, 2025 at 6:23 PM
Reposted by Nicola 🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️
kirstimiller30.bsky.social
The overlap between believers in "gender ideology" and other conspiracy theories is very high.

In all cases, believers ignore evidence in favour of their collective delusion.

The anti-transgender mob are conspiracy theorists and need to be treated as such.
December 9, 2025 at 6:17 PM
Reposted by Nicola 🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️
kirstimiller30.bsky.social
@ronnisalt.bsky.social
kirstimiller30.bsky.social Kirsti Miller @kirstimiller30.bsky.social · 15h
The overlap between believers in "gender ideology" and other conspiracy theories is very high.

In all cases, believers ignore evidence in favour of their collective delusion.

The anti-transgender mob are conspiracy theorists and need to be treated as such.
December 9, 2025 at 6:23 PM
Reposted by Nicola 🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️
kirstimiller30.bsky.social
Nurse Sandy Piggy's behaviour 'doesn't deserve' Equality Act protection

bbc.com/news/article...
Nurse's 'hostile' words did not deserve Equality Act protection
Jane Russell KC said Sandie Peggie's decision to confront Dr Beth Upton in a changing room was made out of anger, not fear.
bbc.com
December 9, 2025 at 8:17 AM
Reposted by Nicola 🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️
thatdocphoenix.com
Radio 4 and BBC and Channel 4 News and all the papers completely skewing the Peggie story so your average person will have no idea what actually happened. Doesn’t this make you furious? Integrity in journalism is dead, not just in the US
December 9, 2025 at 9:11 AM
Reposted by Nicola 🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️
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 Nicola 🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️
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 Nicola 🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️
goodlawproject.org
An important point to come out of the Sandie Peggie case is that 'gender critical' employees can't take matters into their own hands and confront trans employees. If they do that it is likely to be harassment/ bullying/ a hate incident.
So far as her other comments are concerned, they were impermissible manifestations of her belief and were in our view what amounted to an incident of harassment by the claimant of the second respondent related to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, reasonably perceived by the second respondent to be so, and were a breach by the claimant of section 26 of the Act and of the Bullying and Harassment Policy. The second respondent was entitled to view the actions of the claimant in those particular regards as being such harassment, or as a “hate incident” within the policy, and the first respondent was entitled in principle to act on the complaint made, but the detail of how it did so depends on all the circumstances as more fully addressed below. The second respondent was also entitled to regard the claimant’s actions as a breach of the second respondent’s Article 8 rights, so far as the claimant’s expression of her beliefs was impermissible. 1034. We also considered that the claimant had acted deliberately to be able to challenge the second respondent whilst they were alone. What she did was to wait until other members of staff had left the changing room, and for the second respondent to leave the cubicle, before raising her own beliefs directly with the second respondent in the manner we have set out. 1035. Whilst the claimant had not been informed as promptly and in the detail we considered appropriate, and the first respondent did not consider whether to revoke permission at all, the claimant did not herself raise any formal grievance under the policy. She is an experienced member of staff who had access to union advice. She knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the first respondent having granted permission to the second respondent she required to have raised her concerns with the first respondent as the decision-maker rather than with the colleague to whom it had been granted, and in any event ought not to have done so in the manner that she did.
December 9, 2025 at 9:20 AM
Reposted by Nicola 🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️
hleehurley.com
Why are there two Graham Linehan's in that first image?

(zoom in)
December 8, 2025 at 7:43 PM
Reposted by Nicola 🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️
goodlawproject.org
You know, infuriating and a shameful betrayal though the BBC and other media's misreporting of the Sandie Peggie judgment is, it also doesn't really matter.

What matters is the judgment which lawyers will read, use to advise their clients, and inclusion will be the winner.
December 8, 2025 at 7:49 PM
Reposted by Nicola 🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️
robinince.bsky.social
As the trans community have known for a while now - the definition of activist is someone who dares to state they exist
HADLEY FREEMAN Wes Streeting must stand up to the ADHD activists I can help with the minister's review: some people are just confused by life Hadley Freeman
December 8, 2025 at 8:18 PM
Reposted by Nicola 🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️
davidbtn2.bsky.social
No surprise that a person whose first response to a budget is to mock and personally humiliate the opposition in Parliament (and when challenged uses ‘they did it first’ as an excuse) is incapable of the most basic comprehension.
goodlawproject.org Jolyon Maugham KC @goodlawproject.org · 1d
She won her case like you won the general election.
December 8, 2025 at 6:34 PM
nicclesb.bsky.social
I don't think I've ever seen Katya this distraught. #ItTakesTwo
December 8, 2025 at 6:58 PM
Reposted by Nicola 🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️
owenjones.bsky.social
So many bad-faith attacks on Zack Polanski.

His own partner works in palliative care!

About a third of carers are migrants.

Among other things, Labour has banned them from bringing their partners and kids here.

Labour pretending to care about them is nauseating.
December 8, 2025 at 6:19 PM
Reposted by Nicola 🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️
goodlawproject.org
She won her case like you won the general election.
December 8, 2025 at 5:36 PM
Reposted by Nicola 🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️
reactiveashley.bsky.social
Ten months ago, I described Maya Forstater’s evidence as a “peculiar scrapbook” and the Tribunal largely agreed with me. 🙈
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. They commenced with “Provisions to maintain relevant spaces and interactions as “same sex” are in order to protect dignity, privacy and safety are particularly important to women because:……”. That is both an expression of opinion and raises the question of what provisions are being referred to. 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 are of women, for good reason.” 4104864/2024 Page 243 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 ag…
December 8, 2025 at 4:56 PM
Reposted by Nicola 🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️
sloanelysbeth.bsky.social
it's kinda silly that labour mps come on to bluesky thinking they're going to get anything other than a cold reception but it's wild as all hell that they come on to bluesky and attack the greens.
December 8, 2025 at 4:29 PM
Reposted by Nicola 🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️
aidancomerford.bsky.social
Read the ruling and you'll find that the tribunal found Beth Upton to be calm and largely credible, and they accepted her account of the 2023 incident concluding that Peggie had deliberately engineered a confrontation, and had, in fact, harassed Upton.

There were no other complaints.
December 8, 2025 at 4:43 PM
Reposted by Nicola 🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️
crazycanloon.bsky.social
December 8, 2025 at 1:15 AM
Reposted by Nicola 🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️
goodlawproject.bsky.social
Today’s judgment in the Sandie Peggie case says exactly what we have been saying – For Women Scotland does not require a trans bathroom ban:
Screenshot of a paragraph from the judgment, with the final sentence highlighted: “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.”
December 8, 2025 at 3:21 PM
Reposted by Nicola 🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️
snig.bsky.social
Dear Labour,
"Women's portions": is this really what you're proposing in 2025?
#LetFoodBeFood
Daily Mail headline reads “Labour’s obesity tsar urges restaurants to give women smaller portions than men as they need less calories”
December 8, 2025 at 3:24 PM