European Court of Human Rights

Paragraph 236 is part of the review of the implications of the judgment on the Equality Act 2010, reflecting the judges' careful consideration of that entire act. The paragraph is couched in conditional language ("a women’s boxing competition organiser could refuse to admit all men", "the gender reassignment exception would be available", etc). They appear to have decided that although the upshot of their judgment is that the organiser of a women's boxing competition could henceforth refuse to admit biological men, this is not a bad or unreasonable thing. Which is great! But again, it doesn't say anything about whether the boxing organisers must henceforth refuse to admit all men. That would probably require an Act of Parliament (which, were it ever to be proposed, would surely include this judgment in its preamble).

Put another way, that paragraph isn't the judgment in itself (arguably, the judgment is just the five words in paragraph 268). It does not say or imply that "We, the judges of the Supreme Court, hereby decree that organisers of women’s boxing competitions must exclude biological men", because that was not the question in front of them. The only question in front of them was the definition of "women" in the Equality Act 2010, and that's all that they were able to pronounce on. The law is often very boring, and often doesn't do as much as we might like. 🙏

I have the full 88-page ruling here in front of me. Can you point to where it says that?

It doesn't say that you have to interpret 'women' that way. So leisure centres could, if they wanted, continue to allow biological males into the women's changing rooms.

Wrong
If they allow men in they have to label the place as mixed sex.

The whole point of the ruling is that "woman" means "biologically female"
so any space labelled "women" that allows men in
is breaking the law

The sign on the door would have to say "unisex" or "mixed"

No because use of the word woman precludes men

Or you say 'women and those who identify as women'

It doesn't say that you have to interpret 'women' that way. So leisure centres could, if they wanted, continue to allow biological males into the women's changing rooms.

Wrong
If they allow men in they have to label the place as mixed sex.

The whole point of the ruling is that "woman" means "biologically female"
so any space labelled "women" that allows men in
is breaking the law

The sign on the door would have to say "unisex" or "mixed"

Jolyon's got a fighting fund.
The Supreme Court’s decision this week to not include trans women in the definition of women in the Equality Act isn’t just wrong, it’s extremely harmful.
The Supreme Court can kid itself all it likes about this decision not being bad for trans people, but trans people know it is the latest savage blow against a community that is already reeling.
We are committed to stand with the trans community and fight these rollbacks, whatever it takes. We’re creating a fighting fund to look at both domestic and international cases, all the way up to the European Court of Human Rights.
This fight will be long – and it’ll be expensive. But as the world becomes a more hostile place for trans people, it’s a fight that becomes increasingly more important. If you are able to, your support means more now than ever.
Details
Funds raised will support our cases fighting for trans rights in the UK.
Ten per cent of the funds raised will be a contribution to the general running costs of Good Law Project. It is our policy only to raise sums that we anticipate could be spent on the work we are crowdfunding for. However, if there is a surplus it will go towards our work fighting for a fairer, greener future for all.

The hypothetical transwoman. I know real life is more complex, but, if SC has said black is not white, how can they bring a case based on an assertion that it is?

Or is it that they have to prove that black not being white has adverse human rights consequences and therefore EA needs rewriting?

Unlikely, for many it's about validation and has nothing to do with safety.

They don't want to be in a third space.

The GRA itself didn't come from Europe, that was the UK's solution - it was entirely to avoid legislating for equal marriage.

Jolyon's got a fighting fund.
The Supreme Court’s decision this week to not include trans women in the definition of women in the Equality Act isn’t just wrong, it’s extremely harmful.
The Supreme Court can kid itself all it likes about this decision not being bad for trans people, but trans people know it is the latest savage blow against a community that is already reeling.
We are committed to stand with the trans community and fight these rollbacks, whatever it takes. We’re creating a fighting fund to look at both domestic and international cases, all the way up to the European Court of Human Rights.
This fight will be long – and it’ll be expensive. But as the world becomes a more hostile place for trans people, it’s a fight that becomes increasingly more important. If you are able to, your support means more now than ever.
Details
Funds raised will support our cases fighting for trans rights in the UK.
Ten per cent of the funds raised will be a contribution to the general running costs of Good Law Project. It is our policy only to raise sums that we anticipate could be spent on the work we are crowdfunding for. However, if there is a surplus it will go towards our work fighting for a fairer, greener future for all.

Its an absolute gift for Reform, i bet Farage is rubbing his hand at the prospect of getting all this publicity around the ECHR without having to spend a penny.

Jolyon is far too deep in gender ideology to think about the wider political consequences of his actions

That would be the surest way of guaranteeing a Reform landslide in 2029.

Jolyon's got a fighting fund.
The Supreme Court’s decision this week to not include trans women in the definition of women in the Equality Act isn’t just wrong, it’s extremely harmful.
The Supreme Court can kid itself all it likes about this decision not being bad for trans people, but trans people know it is the latest savage blow against a community that is already reeling.
We are committed to stand with the trans community and fight these rollbacks, whatever it takes. We’re creating a fighting fund to look at both domestic and international cases, all the way up to the European Court of Human Rights.
This fight will be long – and it’ll be expensive. But as the world becomes a more hostile place for trans people, it’s a fight that becomes increasingly more important. If you are able to, your support means more now than ever.
Details
Funds raised will support our cases fighting for trans rights in the UK.
Ten per cent of the funds raised will be a contribution to the general running costs of Good Law Project. It is our policy only to raise sums that we anticipate could be spent on the work we are crowdfunding for. However, if there is a surplus it will go towards our work fighting for a fairer, greener future for all.

That isn't how the ECtHR works. Cases are brought by individuals, or very occasionally by other states, against states, on the basis that X events happened, Y legal process took place, and Z verdict which the appellant doesn't like was returned from the top level of the process. Check out Article 35 of the convention here. https://www.coe.int/en/web/compass/the-european-convention-on-human-rights-and-its-protocols

So what would have to happen would be that a trans person would have to want to do something (e.g., use a changing room reserved for the opposite sex), and then they would be turned down (or arrested for going in anyway), and then they would sue the leisure centre (or be taken to court and charged with whatever the actual legal offence is), and it would then go through the UK courts, and end up at the Supreme Court which would say "the leisure centre was within its rights to not allow access to the women's changing rooms to someone who is not a biological woman, per our April 2025 judgment", and then the trans person would submit their case to Strasbourg.

The case last week on which the Supreme Court ruled can't go on to the ECtHR because it was a win for a group of citizens (For Women Scotland) and a loss for the NHS board (although the actual respondents were the Scottish government ministers). A government organisation can't appeal to the ECtHR more or less by definition, because nobody in the management of the East Fife Health Board or the Scottish government has had their human rights reduced by this decision. Jolyon Maugham can announce that he's going it for the shiggles, but it won't get anywhere.

(In fact, had the SC verdict gone the other way it probably wouldn't have been appealable to the ECtHR either, because FWS brought the case in the civil courts against the ministers. Sandy Peggie, the person whose rights were directly affected, wasn't on the docket as far as I know. However, I think I'm right in saying that her employment tribunal case is still going. In the event that she were now to lose that, she could then go through the rest of the legal process and ultimately it might end up at the ECtHR. But in view of the SC ruling this seems vanishingly unlikely, and I assume the health board/Scottish NHS/government will now fold.)

It may also be worth remembering that the SC decision is strictly only about people with a Gender Recognition Certificate. Even if the decision had been appealable to Strasbourg, any verdict in favour of the trans side could only have been valid for people with a GRC, which the majority of trans-activist people don't have because TRAs are all about self-id.

Jolyon's got a fighting fund.
The Supreme Court’s decision this week to not include trans women in the definition of women in the Equality Act isn’t just wrong, it’s extremely harmful.
The Supreme Court can kid itself all it likes about this decision not being bad for trans people, but trans people know it is the latest savage blow against a community that is already reeling.
We are committed to stand with the trans community and fight these rollbacks, whatever it takes. We’re creating a fighting fund to look at both domestic and international cases, all the way up to the European Court of Human Rights.
This fight will be long – and it’ll be expensive. But as the world becomes a more hostile place for trans people, it’s a fight that becomes increasingly more important. If you are able to, your support means more now than ever.
Details
Funds raised will support our cases fighting for trans rights in the UK.
Ten per cent of the funds raised will be a contribution to the general running costs of Good Law Project. It is our policy only to raise sums that we anticipate could be spent on the work we are crowdfunding for. However, if there is a surplus it will go towards our work fighting for a fairer, greener future for all.

I think I’ll become a plumber specialising in third spaces - make a fortune!