Gingergem
LightNews LightNews
banner
coppercats.bsky.social
Gingergem
@coppercats.bsky.social
570 followers 450 following 270 posts
Cat mum 🐈. 🏳️‍⚧️🏳️‍🌈🦋
Posts Replies Media Videos
Reposted by Gingergem
shel56.bsky.social
Another grifter that lost a court case.

No one pushes anyone to transition who does not want to. It's a personal choice to make, bet there will be a Christian influence with this grift scammer now. www.carolinajournal.com/detransition...
Detransitioner’s fraud claim dismissed, malpractice claim still blocked
A Gaston County judge has dismissed Prisha Mosley’s fraud and conspiracy-to-fraud claims against medical providers who performed her gender transition procedures. The ruling rejected efforts to revive...
www.carolinajournal.com
December 20, 2025 at 12:58 PM
Reposted by Gingergem
nionwomen.bsky.social
More than 72K women have already added their names to our letter in solidarity. Together we are a collective voice showing that trans-exclusion is not being done in our name.

Join us and help keep the momentum growing…
✍️ Sign here: notinourname.org.uk
🔄 Share to help us reach even more supporters
Home - Not in our name
Not In our Name: Women in support of the trans+community
notinourname.org.uk
December 20, 2025 at 12:25 PM
Reposted by Gingergem
philippaeast.bsky.social
Worse. EHRC (under Falkner) facilitated / advocated for those rights to be removed + explicitly objected to measures to improve life for 🏳️‍⚧️ people.

See here: www.equalityhumanrights.com/our-work/leg...

Here: www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-...

And here:
www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre...
EHRC position on reform of the Gender Recognition Act 2004
Letter from the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Housing and Local Government to the EHRC on their position on reform of the Gender Recognition Act 2004
www.parliament.scot
December 19, 2025 at 10:17 PM
Reposted by Gingergem
goodlawproject.org
You don't need to take my word for this. You can just read what Lord Hodge - the judge of the Supreme Court who presided over the case said himself, IN AN INTERVIEW WITH THE TIMES. He could hardly be clearer that the case was not about single sex spaces.
In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court determined that, for the purposes of the act, a person’s legal sex is their sex recorded at birth — that is, biological sex. It meant that public bodies, providing toilet or bathing spaces, had to provide separate facilities for transgender people, a ruling that is still being argued across the country. Hodge, who presided over the case with two female justices, defended the decision and pointed out that the case before the court had nothing to do with how or where single-sex spaces should be created. Hodge, who presided over the case with two female justices, defended the decision and pointed out that the case before the court had nothing to do with how or where single-sex spaces should be created.
December 20, 2025 at 6:54 AM
Reposted by Gingergem
goodlawproject.org
Leave aside for a second that this a demand for men (with beards and penises who have physically transitioned) to use 'women's spaces' and women (with breasts and vaginas who have physically transitioned) to use men's spaces. It is simply not what the Supreme Court said.
December 20, 2025 at 6:50 AM