Michael Foran: For Women Scotland: Is legal recognition of biological sex a violation of human rights?

[fromorbit]

Lots of Legal posts coming in with Naomi Cunningham's response, Good Law Project's latest terrible advice, now we have Dr Michael Foran's latest. -

Short version - biological sex exists, the Supreme Court was right, Crash Wigley's legal arguments against the decision are weak.

This post is a response to Crash Wigley’s post,which argues (among other things) that the Supreme Court has failed to consider the human rights implications of this judgment for transgender people and that the decision is likely to lead to violations of the Article 8 ECHR rights of transgender people in the UK.
https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2025/05/15/michael-foran-for-women-scotland-is-legal-recognition-of-biological-sex-a-violation-of-human-rights/

Note Wigley is involved in Good Law Project's three hundred and eighty grand attempt to attack the judgement. Not looking great for any form of success there if they even do anything.

Bumping this because it is an excellent read, especially if you read Wigley's post first.

So the angle they are taking is that the ruling is a violation of trans people's human rights. But what about the human rights of women? I don't think Chase Wrigley addresses this. How do they square that circle?

Women aren’t human?

Good and reassuring read legal challenges against the SC ruling have no chance whatsoever.

Agree Banned. This is a well-argued, beautifully evidenced and cogent piece (and I’ve now read so much commentary on the SC judgement I’m starting to wonder whether I can identify as a lawyer).

A reader at law perhaps