'No Trans person was involved in Supreme Court FWS v Scottish Ministers'

Non binary lawyer? Oh really yes.
How many men wake up in the morning really not wanting to be lumbered with the advantages men have, or hate how other men treat women, just don't want to become of those men, or any man?
How many women wake in the morning, sick and tired of period pain and other female physiology challenges, or fighting against sexist men, sorting out the kids in school and parents in care etc, just so don't want to be a woman anymore?
Imagine you can wish that all away and just pick the category you want off the shelf?
And this person will argue this should be the law, lol.

Entering a high-profile Supreme Court case as a named intervenor carries immense risk, including:Targetted press hostility and public harassment.Regulatory vulnerability, such as investigations by the Charity Commission.Severe financial strain or potential bankruptcy if proceedings draw out.

Which of course the public funded and fantastically wealthy activist charities and organisations like the NHS have ethically considered and been sensitive to when women are forced into court every five minutes to defend their actual, existing legal rights, such as to not have to take their clothes off to validate a man's inner self with their bodies. And have absolutely never strung out cases as long as possible with the aim of punishing the crap out of women and bankrupting them past being able to access justice.

How the fuck do writers of bollocks like this get their noses through doorways?

Like the impact statement of the government’s conversion bill having a link direct to Stonewall’s conversion ban campaign and fundraising page?

An entryist takeover of Diversity Role Models, another UK charity, isn't it? Because the old brand is irretrievably sullied.

Yes, we already see how Stonewall are re-aranging the deckchairs now that that the old set has been rumbled.

While there's money to be made out of committing to doomed-to- fail court cases, I should imagine there will always be a line of men queueing up to do it

I know it's only AI, but this part -
Trans community advocates have pointed out that grass-roots trans charities and organisations in the UK operate under severe resource constraints and intense public scrutiny. Entering a high-profile Supreme Court case as a named intervenor carries immense risk, including:Targetted press hostility and public harassment.Regulatory vulnerability, such as investigations by the Charity Commission.Severe financial strain or potential bankruptcy if proceedings draw out.

Sex Matters and the lesbian intervenors were prepared to take the risk. Imagine their finances compared to those of the LGBTQ+ groups mentioned above.

And above all you have the three ordinary (well, extra-ordinary) women who have put themselves on the line, time and time again.

This is essentially what the ECtHR said regarding the Freddy McConnell case, which they refused to hear as they deemed it inadmissable. The child has rights too (to have an accurate biological record of their birth) and FM's wish to be seen as a man doesn't override that. The UK Supreme Court's ruling was within the wider margin of appreciation it is afforded when balancing rights related to sex/gender.

https://todaysfamilylawyer.co.uk/echr-rejects-appeal-by-trans-man-to-be-named-as-childs-father-rather-than-mother/

*Edited for typos

Regardless of who was or was not involved, the judgement was founded upon the law as it stands and how the law needs to be implemented to make sense.

I would really like for all this to go to the ECtHR, because it would mean for the first time women's rights and legal protections, and gay rights and legal protections would have to be thoroughly unpicked and considered alongside gender identity rights and legal protections. As they never have been before. It would not be a case of trans trumps all, as the SCJ went into in depth, other people have rights and legal protections too.

As mentioned before, if the case finds that gender ideology is trampling women and gay rights, the outcome of that case could potentially have a very serious impact on law and policy across Europe, bringing it into line with England.

However I also suspect that should the answer be in some form, as it would have to be, 'other people have rights too, sorry, but they do' - suddenly the ECtHR would be as trivial and unimportant a thing as the Supreme Court became, the second it protected women and gay rights.

We all know the big mistake the SNP and Amnesty made is not to employ the real legal experts in this matter. :)

Why was Good Law Practice not allowed in court?

Why did the SNP refuse to use such a brilliant organisation?

Exactly.

The reality is there is big and very wealthy LGBT/ trans charity sector that could easily have intervened they just didn't want to because they relied on SNP and Amnesty their was their choice. It would have cost them money they wanted to pay in salaries and other things. Then they complained .afterwards tabout the result.

Stonewall is the largest LGBTQ+ charity in the UK, reporting an annual income of approximately £4.7 million in its recent accounts.

LGBT Foundation: Around £3.7 million to £4 million

Gendered Intelligence: Reported a total gross income of £1,878,614 for the financial year ending June 30, 2025. The charity focuses on increasing understanding of gender diversity and improving the quality of life for trans people, particularly youth.

Mermaids: Reported a total gross income of £1,337,663 for the financial year ending March 31, 2025. Mermaids supports transgender, non-binary, and gender-diverse children, young people, and their families.

Not A Phase: Grew its income to £490,000 for the year leading up to mid-2025, supported by individual donations, brand partnerships, and merchandise.

Someone mentioned upthread that McCloud lives in Ireland, but I think McCloud was still resident in the UK at the time of the ruling. I could be wrong about that though.

Thank you. Still waiting then I guess. From what I understand, McCloud and Whittle are arguing that, as affected individuals with GRCs, their particular interests were not adequately represented by Amnesty (as a broader human rights group rather than trans specific) and the SG, and when the Supreme Court refused their applications to intervene, they should have provided justification. So they are trying to use Article 6 to get FWS reheard on procedural grounds, which is why they can go straight to Strasbourg, rather than having to spend years going through the domestic courts.

A group like Translucent were free to apply to intervene (presumably they didn't as they would have effectively had to argue against self ID because the case related to those with GRCs only).

Hopefully, the ECHR will refuse to hear it. If individual gender critical women had applied to intervene, I assume they would also have been refused. I think the aim is to sow doubt and confusion about the FWS ruling. Even if the ECHR said the case should be reheard with representation from trans individuals, the outcome would likely be the same. McCloud managed to gets lots of publicity when this move was announced, with media taking a sympathetic view that trans people's human rights had been breached. If McCloud's case gets thrown out, I wonder how much media attention that will get?

I'd love to know what happened with McCloud and the GLP. The GLP were initially supporting the case, but they seem to have parted ways... The GLP are instead focusing on bringing judicial reviews (unsuccessfully).

The Amnesty written intervention was utterly woeful. I'm surprised any lawyer would boast of having a hand in it.😀

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/knowledge-hub/all-resources/amnesty-international-uks-third-party-intervention-supreme-court-appeal-case-women/

"trans charities and organisations in the UK operate under severe resource constraints"

Stonewall and Mermaids of course run from someone's kitchen table on a budget of sixpence a year. 🙄

Indeed! The SG were wholly and entirely supporting trans people (some might say they still are!). That was why FWS brought the case AGAINST the SG in the first place.
This needs to be shouted from the rooftops!

Edit:typo

The UK Supreme Court does not
on any topic
take individual representation

McClouds ECHR issue is that he did not live in the UK at the date of the judgement so was not affected by it.

As were the Scottish Government

Amnesty et al were entirely representing the trans ideological position, fed to them wholesale by transactivist organisations. The mere fact of 'no one actually trans stood in the room at the time and emoted' has sod all to do with anything.

I don't think McCloud's submission will be successful, but it would be good to have that confirmed.