Oh wow our @38degrees.bsky.social petition to cap political donations in the UK has over 94k signatures!! 💥
There's still lots of time for amendments to Elections Bill. Would be so powerful to get it over 100k
Can you help? Please sign and share! Thanks! 😀 you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/ta...
Open now! @flsjournal.bsky.social @fdelond.bsky.social @jonathanherring.bsky.social @drmarymcauliffe.bsky.social @ials.bsky.social @florarenz.bsky.social @mlafineman.bsky.social @sssh-research.bsky.social @sorchamcc.bsky.social
Please sign. This really bothers me. Green energy, so much cheaper to produce, is being charged at the rate of gas because they can. Are they going to give that up once gas is phased out? We need to ensure fair prices now, and see the benefit in our bills, to keep fair prices for the long term.
Brilliant article by a teacher highlighting the current dire situation for teachers and kids every winter when it comes to infection risk and spread. We continue to fight for our kids to have the right to breathe clean air.
stevebheadteacher.wordpress.com/2025/09/30/d...
Call for Papers: Special Issue of Feminist Legal Studies Feminist Responses to the Regression of Trans Rights: Strategies, Alliances, Hope Amidst continuing backlash against trans rights, recognition and inclusion, two recent decisions from the UK have substantially impacted not only trans people’s legal status but also legal and social narratives of sex, gender and identity. The narrative that trans inclusion has a chilling effect on the rights of others, particularly women, has been adopted uncritically by both the UK Supreme Court in For Women Scotland and the Office for Students in its finding that the University of Sussex’s trans-inclusion policy had a chilling effect on free speech. These cases highlight a backlash that has been ongoing for some time, and sparks debates and fear of what may lie in the near future for trans people and kin, as well as other gender-variant persons, not only in the UK, but across jurisdictions and in a global perspective. The discourse of the ‘gender critical’ movement is splintering both the feminist and LGBT+ movements globally, with some aligning politically with the Far- and Christian Right against trans rights, adopting their terminology of ‘gender ideology’ and potentially posing a wider threat to sexual and reproductive rights. While this a difficult situation for trans people, kin and allies, this special issue seeks to emphasise that legal battles – including battles (temporarily) lost – are also an opportunity to seek to reinforce old alliances and to form new ones, to find new legal frontiers and imaginaries, to reinforce the theoretical and methodological underpinnings of legal arguments as well as intergenerational memory of what feminist legal work is, has been and should be about. How, we ask, do these decisions (and those like them globally) reflect and reproduce structures of coloniality, heteronormativity and cisnormativity? What do these decisions add to critiques of legal feminism? What would be construct…
📣🏳️⚧️ Call for Papers
We are inviting papers for our special issue, “Feminist Responses to the Regression of Trans Rights: Strategies, Alliances, Hope.” The issue will be dedicated to trans-inclusive feminist legal analysis that addresses attacks on trans rights & lives.
Details below. Please share.
If I have to explain to you why it's a bad idea to use a machine that makes shit up 15-80% of the time AND destroys the environment AND contributes to rising fascism and genocide AND puts brilliant skillful creatives out of work by stealing their work, then we're already speaking different languages
Para 102, quote, As to the Government’s main justification relying on the claimed need to protect the privacy interests of other bathroom users, Mr Parker submitted that the PCCBR in fact make little if any contribution to user privacy, and actually would be counter-productive: Item 1, The Government’s privacy argument takes as its premise the proposition that K is to be treated as a woman for the purpose of bathroom use based on his biological sex at birth and/or HKID sex marker, but whether he should be treated as a male or female for this purpose is what is in issue. Item 2, The argument ignores the reality of what trans people actually do when they use the bathroom. As K does not possess male genitalia, he does not use urinals, and K uses a cubicle where he can neither see others nor be seen. (The same would be true of a trans woman visiting a female bathroom, which has only cubicles.) Item 3, Hence, given a male appearance, it is difficult to see how other male bathroom users would be affected by K’s mere presence, not least when fully clothed outside the cubicle or shower compartment. Item 4, K’s male appearance would likely cause more consternation if he were forced to use the female toilets, as he would appear to be – and K’s evidence was that he had in fact sometimes been accused of being – in the “wrong” bathroom. Forcing K to use female public conveniences would create an even greater privacy harm both to him and to female bathroom users.
3/ Lol, even a British judge operating under communist rule managed to state the obvious: that trans people use toilets to pee, and that toilets have cubicles. One can only marvel at how the Ladies and Lords failed to do the same.
🚨How Britain privatised itself into failure.🚨 Britain outsourced its state – now private firms profit while public services crumble.
In 'Failed State', Sam Freedman explains what went wrong.
I cannot emphasize enough how true & real this is.
In almost anywhere on the political spectrum you ID with or major issue, there’s probably a bot/troll operation to encourage your rage and vitriol.
And how/where that rage gets directed, esp understandable rage, is what they are out to influence.
🌍 Applications open: Funded International Visiting Research Fellowships (2025–2026)
As part of our commitment to global collaboration, we invite scholars outside the UK to build or expand research ties with our staff and research clusters.
📅 Apply by 31 Aug 2025
🔗 bit.ly/internationa...
Behind the ruling: how ‘Sex Matters’ is shaping UK policy on trans rights
The UK Supreme Court ruling redefined ‘sex’ – but for trans people, it’s the start of something far more sweeping and exclusionary
By ST Williams
@yorkshirebylines.co.uk
It's all just so amazingly wonderfully brilliant for women, isn't it? www.theguardian.com/politics/202...
We have this already - it's called the cross-subsidy from international fees to underfunded home students
Labour has a whopping great majority and four years left to turn this country around.
They should be setting the agenda, not chasing about trying to placate voters of a party with five MPs who will never vote for them anyway.
It's not only disappointing... it's embarrassing
This is a serious problem for all gender non-conforming women (especially the butch lesbians who ‘the lesbian intervenors’ are purportedly concerned about). The SC decision was a victory only for heteropatriarchy. Monique Wittig once said “lesbians are not women”. This is not what she meant.
Dr Victoria McLeod outlines how the Supreme Court’s reading of “sex” within the Equality Act to mean sex assigned at birth only places the UK now at serious risk of breaching its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights.
We need our courts to give space and listen to trans people.
“We reject the proper functioning of sex, sexual orientation, lesbian-only spaces and associations, fair participation in sport. The absence of coherence is the only correct reading.”
Emily Grabham has written a searing parodic judgment exposing the UK Supreme Court’s non-sense of “biological sex.”
The wrong ICE is melting The wrong Amazon is burning
Sign of the day…
💯 the Southern Poverty Law Centre reported the same tactic outlined at a right-wing US conference as well.
Thanks Loveday!
Your periodic reminder that one way to think about privilege is: who's allowed to make mistakes?
Thank you! 😀
I'm really sorry, but we just need to stop doing this. Your wood-burning hygge leads directly to people's deaths - other people's and perhaps your own.
www.theguardian.com/environment/...
been used for more immediate outputs, with no guarantee that it would be admissible. For an account of the background to this case see: academic.oup.com/hrlr/article... and there is an account of our legal arguments before the ECtHR in my forthcoming JSWFL article
And finally, this is the third consecutive impact prize for Liverpool and that doesn’t happen by accident so I have to thank Marie Fox who nominated me and the previous two winners, and Helen Stalford who as HoD supported me to take a huge risk in spending a lot of time on this case that could have
their willingness to fight on. Rod Attride-Stirling and his team at ASW Law in Bermuda, and Sarah Hannett KC and Nathan Roberts (Matrix) were incredible and a pleasure to work with. I really appreciate their time and considerable expertise on this case.
I have to thank first and foremost the 8 applicants who were willing to stand up to not only their own govt but also the UK govt by bringing this case to the ECtHR. This case is incredibly important legally but it is also very personal for them and the JCPC decision was bruising so I appreciate
I’m delighted to have jointly won the 2025 impact prize - thank you very much to the SLSA and congratulations to fellow winner Mark Walters, as well as all the nominees and winners across the categories. This prize is for my work challenging the revocation of same-sex marriage in Bermuda so…
