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

This is what Google AI is saying about McCloud's claims (to be taken with a pinch of salt as it mainly links to the GLP 🙄)

1. The "Chilling Effect" on Trans OrganisationsTrans 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.Because of this "chilling effect," trans advocacy groups often rely on strategic legal partnerships—like working with the Good Law Project—to put forward qualified individuals who have the legal expertise to carry the argument without destroying a small charity

.2. McCloud and Whittle Were the Proxy for Trans VoicesDr. Victoria McCloud and Professor Stephen Whittle did not apply simply as interested citizens; they applied as the explicit vehicle to bring trans representation to the court, backed heavily by the wider community and legal funds.They were uniquely positioned because they were the architects of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the UK's first openly trans High Court judge. Since no corporate trans entity could safely apply, their joint application was designed to serve as the structural representation for trans people holding GRCs.

The Core Procedural ArgumentMcCloud's submission to the ECtHR argues that by rejecting the only viable mechanism through which trans perspectives were being offered (their joint application) while simultaneously approving multiple interventions from opposing advocacy groups, the Supreme Court created a profound, structural imbalance.From her perspective, saying "trans organisations didn't apply" ignores the harsh socio-legal climate that prevented them from doing so, and it does not justify the court completely closing the door on the alternative legal representation that did come forward.

Any news on the Victoria McCloud submission to the ECHR, which I believe was on these grounds (Article 6?). I think the argument was that the ruling was procedurally unfair because the trans intervenors's applications (McCloud and Stephen Whittle) were rejected with no explanation given.

Quite. I thought without genital checks no one can possibly know anything at all. Ever.

That’s a lot of assuming about people from their presentation. I thought the enlightened ones were supporting all presentations as valid, and people are trans whether they are comfortable presenting that way publicly or not. The least they could do is say the assume (based on stereotypical appearances that they can see) that there were no trans people involved.

Did Stonewall decide not to apply to intervene? If so, what with them being a big trans charity, it’s quite the conundrum.

They are making a lot of assumptions about people's Gender ID there. I thought the mantra was you couldnt spot trans people because they passed so well.

Also...how do they know?

What definition are they using? Because stonewalls definition is...fairly broad. I'm mean, lots of us on here are trans by some definitions.