Trans former judge to take government to ECHR

[CervixSampler]

Trans former judge is taking the government to the European Court of Human Rights over SC ruling

I just want to be clear that the second paragraph is paraphrasing this TRA judge. I realise reading it back it looks like I'm saying it.

Nobody asked WOMEN if they want to share facilities with men in dresses
No-one else calls men in dresses mum
The Police have been pretending men are women so they can strip search women
Etc etc

Ha ha spot on. How embarrassing for them. I look forward to hearing the barrister awkwardly making these arguments in court.

Surely if the GLP had the best interests of transpeople at heart, and we’re such good allies, they’d do the cases pro bono?

https://goodlawproject.org/for-women-scotland-a-legal-critique/?utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=transfund_post_15943&utm_medium=social_media&utm_content=30-04-2025

This appears to be the GLP argument.

It relies on Goodwin, and article 8 and doesn’t appear to acknowledge that rights must be balanced, and that the reason that the SC decided as they did was that the PC of sex can’t exist if it is heterogenous.

If you Google on the author’s name & look at the images you might understand why his analysis appears so partial.

The bizarre thing is, VM genuinely used to pass quite well. I used "she" naturally. Entirely normal, middle aged female "enough" person. Everyone knew, of course, but it wasn't a disconnect.

Then, possible during as a result of? covid, the email footer became rainbow washed. The hair was dyed half blue. The outfits became ridiculous- skin tight low cut emerald green dress on one occasion, as worn by no other woman in court ever. And he became more and more male coded, it was glaringly obvious in a way it absolutely hadn't been before.

The underlying sexual element becoming more overt as others seem to be less inhibited?

@teawamutu shot himself in the foot there then. Or the dick

Yeah.

McCloud: 'I mean, my birth certificate says female.'

General public: 'Well, it really bloody shouldn't then, should it?'

We might think that. Pro women lawyers often work for low fees, but the TA side is different mainly because they are not expected to win legal cases and need to be paid a lot.

There are now £353,283.77 reasons that GLP/McCloud needs to get paid.

Kimonos and dresses don't come cheap.

GLP raised 512,452 to take on 8 cases on trans matters between 2020 and 2024 which are now concluded. All of them failed and had no positive results.

This one looks to becoming the most spectacular failure so far.

I honestly can’t imagine myself thinking VM passes as female, but I guess I’ve only seen this context.

4. Nobody asked disabled people if they want to share facilities with men in dresses.

The government asked for designs to inform policy for people with disabilities and long term health conditions. The company that assessed design for this group, that fed into Document T, didn’t actually look at some of the disabilities and long term health conditions. If they did, they would realise door gaps were a life saving design feature. However the company did look at an opinion article from transactivists and used it as evidence to recommended fully enclosed designs. The company advising the government won a Stonewall award.

Nobody asked people who are disabled by many conditions about toilet design. Which is why Document T needs improvement (it also needs improvement because of women’s safety). The initial consultation was swamped with people arguing for gender neutral toilets as Stonewall and others had a campaign to write in. That’s fine but think about other characteristics as well - they are not even exclusive of each other. Non-binary crotch heights (etc) didn’t need to be discussed - diabetes, epilepsy, asthma, heavy periods, heart attacks, stroke rescue did. Single sex designs need to stipulate door gaps so that people with invisible disabilities have safe toilets.

So disabled people are used not be being asked. Single sex toilets with door gaps are particularly important for safety. Mixed sex designs don’t have door gaps. As soon as toilets become mixed sex then you’ve lost the safety. They are already at lots of disadvantages.

Let's be honest. Nobody of note in the UK (and MN in particular) ever gave two shits about the disabled. And they aren't about to start now.

Personally I don't see the "mess" here. However I know I can safely wager that however it gets "addressed" it will involved removing whatever hard-won provisions the disabled have won (often by literally dragging bloody stumps over the ground) the same way the buggy brigade nicked all the accessible seating.

Witnessing so much time, money and effort being eaten up by the fripperies of gender woo, whilst knowing that you can't get a bus into a town where you can't get into the high street in order to sit outside shops you can't access would have really upset some folk. Luckily the disabled have been required to grow fucking thick skins in order to survive in twenty twenty five.

Imagine pestering your local authority for a year for an adaptation survey, yet having a personal visit from a caseworking if you say you were misgendered.

@SerendipityJane I’m sorry, I don’t agree. Many of us on MN have disabled family members and friends and it’s usually women who do most of the organising, applying and caring. Presumably 51% of disabled people are women too 🤷‍♀️

That's not true.

You are more than free to look at the tumbleweed in all threads whenever I've inconveniently stated that all of these extra spaces that are needed for various categories of people have to come at the expense of the disabled.

At my age and waist size, the past 20 years have seen provision for the disabled generally going backwards. Despite the valiant efforts of the media to big it up as a lifestyle choice.

And with the oncoming cull of state benefits, how can anyone say things are getting better ?

I -promise I'll include a section in my will to out myself on MN and make sense of what I've experienced and when. Suffice is to say I won't be contacted for a breathless piece on how wonderful it was to pogo across Africa despite the drawback of being born unable to pronounce my "r"s[1]

[1]Sarcasm[2]
[2]Whatever

I hope you're wrong. I hope we might see something akin to the massive expansion of gluten free options which catered for the worried well but the coeliacs and intolerants benefitted too. However, this was stuff that was being sold, so it the supermarkets' profitted, it was in their interest.

I'd hope that to cater for people who don't really need it we'd see an expansion of third/gender neutral spaces that would also benefit disabled people. However, there's no profit there so I suspect you're prescient. We'll see gender neutral slapped on current disabled facilities and little, if any, extra provision.

Well, all we have is hope. Mainly because it's cheap.

@SerendipityJane The reason I spend so much time researching and discussing toilets was originally because of invisible disabilities and schools. It then quickly added women and children in public toilets because it was obvious when looking at safety there was the problem of assaults. I looked at public toilets (Document T) in depth and school designs.
I wrote to Parliament, to designers, planners, health and education departments.

Do you know who engaged with it? Mumsnetters. They have been the sole reliable source of support up until recently.

I have never, ever had a reply from an English MP, despite tens of emails. Safety is a difficult sell.

But I am trying to do something about making a difference. I have a few wins so far. It’s picking up momentum, especially now people are having to engage with it.

More third spaces are dangerous if they are private. The absolute best to improve safety would be single sex disabled cubicles (with door gaps). This is because of the sexual assaults that happen in any space where it is private and mixed sex, and also those who collapse in disabled toilets without activating an alarm. I even think mixed sex disabled cubicles should have a door gap but realise that isn’t going to happen. Mixed sex designs are always private. I believe the need for third spaces/gender neutral space needs to be looked at because I know there was such a huge campaign from Stonewall and others - it would be useful to get actual need. From what I can tell, when given a choice, women who want these gender neutral facilities don’t end up using them anyway so they often become extra toilets for men.

I know how frustrating it is. However 4 women met on mumsnet and eventually went all the way to the Supreme Court which has already made its mark on toilet manufacturers websites. I have missed a few screenshots as some all-unisex school case studies (that I have referred to in the past) have already been archived!

Gosh, the rage driven incoherence in this video! It’s quite astounding. He’ll have given himself a tension headache with that speech.

You are more than free to look at the tumbleweed in all threads whenever I've inconveniently stated that all of these extra spaces that are needed for various categories of people have to come at the expense of the disabled.

We must be reading different threads then because all I have ever seen on this Board is that the additional spaces, if they are necessary, for trans people do not come at the expense of disabled options, they are to be as well as not instead of.

Furthermore when a couple of years ago it was suggested that repurposing the disabled facilities would solve the problem it was very soundly and roundly rejected on this Board.

It can be done, it is not difficult but in no way should it interfere with spaces for the disabled and I personally will fight to make sure that it doesn't.

Thread analysing GLP Crash Wigley's legal critique of the judgement.

Summary - Wrigley's position is the BEST response the cleverer TAs have come up with so far beyond the usual wims are nasty stuff. Turns out there is not much to it.

boswelltoday
Folks, I just read Good Law Project’s critique of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on trans rights in the UK. It’s bold, it’s fiery, it’s...kinda missing the point entirely. Buckle up—time for some truthiness.👇
Quote
Good Law Project
@GoodLawProject
·
"The judgment has introduced great uncertainty into the legal regime by appearing to endorse trans-exclusionary practices while leaving the human rights implications of such practices at large."
Read Barrister Crash Wigley's legal critique 👇
https://goodlawproject.org/for-women-scotland-a-legal-critique/?utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=transfund_post_15943&utm_medium=social_media&utm_content=30-04-2025

2/12
They argue the Supreme Court is "undermining rights." Interesting claim, considering the court simply clarified existing laws. Apparently, interpreting the law as written now counts as a hot take. Who knew?

3/12
GLP shout about human rights (ECHR Article 8) being ignored. Except...the court actually balanced trans rights against other rights (y'know, the whole "balance" thing courts love). But hey, nuance is so 2019, right?

4/12
They invoke the Human Rights Act’s magical Section 3(1), thinking courts can just reinterpret laws until they sparkle with rainbows. Spoiler alert: Courts don't rewrite legislation—unless we're suddenly living in Judge Judy’s courtroom.

5/12
Next, they’re upset about Section 9(3) of the Gender Recognition Act, saying the court misused it. Plot twist: Parliament literally created exceptions precisely for when gender identity and biological sex definitions clash. Laws doing law things? Shocking.

6/12
And apparently, citing cases from 20 years ago means we’ve regressed two decades. Look, I love nostalgia too—remember flip phones?—but that doesn’t mean clarifying laws today sends us back to 2004. (Though the music was marginally better then.)

7/12
On single-sex services, GLP claim the ruling opens doors to widespread exclusion. Fact check: Nope. It just reaffirms that exclusions must be justified, proportional, and careful. You know, the same as last year...and the year before that.

8/12
They lean heavily on parliamentary debates and explanatory notes—essentially saying, "Parliament said stuff once, and we liked it better!" Sadly, courts read the actual laws—not the parliamentary "greatest hits" album.

9/12
Here’s a novel concept: if you disagree with the clarity of the law, maybe—just maybe—the real beef is with Parliament, not judges. Crazy, I know. Democracy, amirite?

10/12
In essence, this critique demands the Supreme Court step beyond its powers and rewrite the Equality Act. Folks, that’s like asking your accountant to fix your plumbing—it's gonna get messy.
11/12
Bottom line: The Supreme Court did exactly what courts should do—interpret laws based on what Parliament actually passed, not what Twitter wishes they passed. Outrage doesn't rewrite statutes. (Yet.)

12/12
So here’s an idea, friends: if Good Law Project wants new laws, maybe knock on Parliament's door instead of yelling at judges. I hear Parliament loves a good debate. Bonus points if you bring snacks.

@GailBlancheViola 👏 👏

Detailed look from Labour's pains blog about the dodgy goings on at the GLP.

Will the TAs ever realise they have have been tricked?

More info about GLP fundraising