Trans Ex-Judge on BBC Newscast

[CaveMum]

Can’t bear to listen to it mussels, but if anyone has a string stomach/wants to take one for the team, today’s Newscast is a 43 minute long interview by Laura Kuenssberg of Victoria McCloud who is planning a challenge to overturn the Supreme Court ruling that a woman is defined by biological sex under equalities law.

There aren’t enough 🙄 emoji’s in the world!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0lh0c9r?partner=uk.co.bbc&origin=share-mobile

I believe VM was allowed to make major contributions the "Bench Book" that resulted in the grim sight of countless male paedophiles and rapists being addressed as "she" in their criminal cases.
That guidance has now been somewhat amended - not sure if that coincided with reports that they unexpectedly left their position after online comments were revealed that breached the requirement for judicial impartiality?

These are very good examples of the immense power of certain well placed men to upend societal conventions in their own favour and to remove the rights of others in order to advance their own - all as described in the Denton's report.

A shame that LK didn't have the knowledge and maybe integrity to challenge some of what was said?

@MrsOvertonsWindow yes, influential people like McCloud should have forseen the way this was going years and years ago and given thought to concessions/compromise. I can only think that either they never imagined the pushback they would get or else that compromise is actually impossible in a legal context and they were desperate to be legally recognised. Probably a combination of both.

It must be incredibly difficult for LK to challenge someone who presents with such vulnerable narcissism in any type of way without being accused of… well all the things that JK is accused of, derailing the story.

This is my thought too.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/trans-rights-supreme-court-ruling-pride-2025-b2762580.html

Also in the Independent.

LK did briefly stray into what it must be like for women - the pushback was that human rights of some must take precedence over convenience of the many. Obviously no indication that women might be entitled to human rights too. I wish the BBC could have found a journalist who knew what they were talking about to do this interview. Justin Webb would have been an interesting listen.

Edited to add, disappointed in LK, I’d have thought she would have been better prepared

I believe VM was allowed to make major contributions the "Bench Book" that resulted in the grim sight of countless male paedophiles and rapists being addressed as "she" in their criminal cases.
That guidance has now been somewhat amended - not sure if that coincided with reports that they unexpectedly left their position after online comments were revealed that breached the requirement for judicial impartiality?

I'd forgotten about that. Described by Sarah Phillimore here:

Who judges the judges? | Sarah Phillimore | The Critic Magazine

And Maya Forstater, who also made a complaint about McCloud.

The judge to whom the rules do not apply?

This is their case really. That nothing and no one matters but them, and no one else should be allowed any rights that present boundaries to their absolute freedoms. Particularly women.

It just shows, intelligence and qualifications is no match for the addling of all this. If having a day in court to emote a lot will help then whatever. It doesn't sound as if there's anything more to be involved, and there is no capacity to recognise that other people have rights too. The judiciary and establishment are going to have to realise for themselves that there is nothing that will ever be acceptable or comprehensible to these men but complete enablement and capitulation. Which cannot happen. However you explain it they will still insist it is wrong and cruel: the ability to understand and see it rationally is not there.

Everyone is going to have to learn to live with these permanently angry men constantly telling their sad stories about their belief that everyone is mean to them, in the knowledge that it is no more true than other beliefs they equally sincerely hold. The rest of the world cannot live in their personal reality.

Sometimes it can be reassuring to recognise how flimsy the ‘trans’ arguments are in attempting to fight the SC ruling.

10 astounding minutes on a UK trans sub Reddit reveals such a lot of teenage hysteria and wild misinformation. Occasionally, a grownup stands up and gently corrects the narrative with facts but they’re either immediately deleted or madly downvoted by the kids who cannot allow the light of facts to shine in their pure trans echo chamber.

You almost feel sorry for some, the extent to which they have been mislead and gaslit by their own ‘community’, thus rendering them powerless to mount a credible opposition.

How disturbing that someone who has gone to such lengths to be seen as a woman expresses such distain and dislike of women. We are “ defined by our biology”, but not in the positive way most women see this, but as victims and slaves to our “wandering wombs”. Clearly the frustration of not having a womb of his own ( apologies to Virginia Woolf) has culminated in a spiteful attitude to any measure that protects the rights of women against the incursion of angry, envious and entitled men, naming no names, into our legally protected spaces.

• ‘She can't go out any more because she'd be forced to go into a male bathroom, where she'd probably be killed. (It is only a matter of time till this happens to someone.)

We women are renowned for being able to ‘hold it’ much longer than men, though, so she should be okay. ‘Just go before you leave the house’, as my DM used to say when we were children.

I think this is one of the problems. I remember a few years ago there was an interview between two men about how the GRC would affect women. The interviewer said that it is easier to give into the wants of insecure narcissistic men then it is to manage them effectively, so they essentially kicked the can down the road for the next government to handle.

Always interests me too, the demonstrated belief that people can simply be programmed by talking to them. If they'd been at the SC then they would have explained to/programmed the judges who would then have thought the right things and downloaded the desired answer. People are hollow shells, inanimate objects that are simply programmed with the wished for responses.

Hence the whole programming of 'fragile and vulnerable' as opposed to a topless overweight middle aged man, and 'no man with a trans identity has ever harmed a woman', and the whole 'outing' business and commands that no one can tell, and 'I am a woman' - all in the face of the obvious evidence. You have been told and now you should run the programme as commanded. The world and everyone in it has no purpose or life beyond serving the programme.

There is only rage and incomprehension when the programming does not work to control the world and the desired responses and feedback. Particularly when women resist and show evidence of independent thought: that doesn't compute at all.

They published this about the episode:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gry1q7664o

Maya Forstater is quoted pushing back in the article, but I don't understand why they didn't include any attempt at balance in the broadcast episode.

It's disappointing and irresponsible that VM's baseless assertions about trans people getting killed were broadcast like that.

Wow, he comes across as absolutely unhinged. How worrying that he had such an influential role

Absolutely what I was thinking, too.

If this is a taste of McCloud's arguments then we have nothing to be concerned about.

I agree. I only saw a clip on it on X, and McCloud was making the "they have male cleaners in the women's bathroom" gotcha. And I thought, "is this the calibre of argument they are bringing to the European Court of Human Rights?

I just watched this thing on how to talk to narcissists and essentially the recommendations were

1. Dont play the game. If you don’t praise a narcissist they will provoke YOU. So don’t try to win them over.
2. Give short answers or just silence, so they have nothing to hit you with.
3. Don’t try and get them to empathise (they can’t) instead get them to see how the thing you want benefits them.

Sounds a lot like that was LK was doing.

I want to know why an ex-judge who identifies as a woman would be required to visit a south London pub full of drunken men, especially when he lives in Ireland and only visits the UK “on essential trips”. It seems weirdly specific, and hardly ladylike.

I think his main problem is the reasonableness of the SC decision. He can argue that sex segregation is sometimes discriminatory (as women have done), on the basis of his sex and his pc of gender reassignment. He can claim discrimination by perception. The only thing he can't do is argue that he is actually a woman, but the law has never allowed that.

I am inescapably defined by my biology.

It's also, sadly, why I can't fly.

The women's ofcourse

Agree. Totally unhinged. And living in fantasy land.

Heterosexual families with kids, where, say, the husband is trans, have been re-designated as “lesbian” because the court redefined “lesbians” as well as “women”. Nobody asked them, of course – unlike the 2004 Act, which was with national consent and consultation.

No, it really wasn't with "national consent and consultation". The campaigners for that act actually boasted about how they got the legislation through quietly, without anyone (particularly women) noticing.

Parents fear for the future of their kids: if not helped now, they face forced puberty against their medical best interests and a harder life. Puberty delaying hormones are reversible and have been used upwards of 20 years to “buy time” until kids are adults and can make decisions.

"Forced puberty"? Puberty is the natural process of becoming a sexually mature adult. It's not 'forced'. How is stopping this natural process in their medical best interests? Does he really think that someone who goes through puberty naturally will have a harder life than someone who is medicated so that they never reach sexual maturity?

And a child who doesn't go through puberty doesn't become an adult, since puberty is required for the brain to mature, so they'll be no more able to make decisions than they were before. They'll be an adult chronologically but a child mentally. What sort of person thinks creating adults who think like children is a good idea?

McCloud has qualifications in Psychology. You'd think he'd know something about the brain.

Got to get his kicks somehow.

From the BBC article (last paragraph)

“The Supreme Court did consider arguments on trans issues from the human rights campaign group Amnesty International, but not from exclusively trans activists.”

Well, they heard from the Scottish Gov, and that’s pretty much the same thing 😆

I see that VM is now going for sensible middle aged woman hair, which is far better optics than the half blue/green lunatic "queer" look VM sported over the last few years.