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’d be very wary of a trans psychiatrist. Their belief system doesn’t align with reality. This one says;

For the last 7 years I have worked at the Bridge House detoxification unit here in Kent and worked closely with Kenward Trust. I am committed to providing holistic, co-produced, and evidenced-based assessment and treatment for individuals with addiction and complex needs.”

Definitely not the sort of medicine practised at gender clinics nationally and internationally over the past couple of decades.I wonder why the difference?

This is reason TRA dont want neutral loos in addition to single sex. If there's a ladies toilet that they cant use, everyone will know they are trans. They dont want womens toilets to exist it they cant use them.

Its not really about 'outing' or saftey at all, though, because few pass. Most would just as likely make someone angry going into the womens as the mens.

Its about manipulating others to not say the truth so their fantasy isnt challenged at all. Its why VMC made bonkers claims and LK didnt question them. They are teaching us the script. It wasnt an interview it was a public information advert.

@illinivich thanks for putting this into words:

It wasn't an interview it was a public information advert.

I couldn't believe that the BBC did not challenge VM's inaccuracies (lies?) about the law. Appalling journalism

So…

If Victoria McCloud is / was a highly esteemed lawyer and judge and her civil partner Annie McCloud is a top psychiatrist I can see them overturning the Supreme Court Ruling that a woman is defined by biological sex under equalities law. Soft touch Britain and all that!

It’s not what you know, it’s who you know and no doubt they are chums with all the right people in power.

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

The Scottish government are the people in power, and FWS managed to get the Supreme Court to overturn their decision.

Are you saying that this retired High Court judge and his psychiatrist partner are more powerful than both the Scottish government and the Supreme Court? Or that they could have the means to persuade some other people, who are more powerful than both the Scottish government and the Supreme Court, to overturn the Supreme Court ruling?

That seems unlikely. How could they do this? Who are these powerful people that they might know? The Prime Minister? Could he overturn a Supreme Court judgment? Can anyone?

McCloud obviously didn't know 'the right people in power' when his attempt to intervene in the Supreme Court case was refused.

It really did.

Anything is possible. After all, Victoria Helen McCloud (née Williams) was born on October 13, 1969. She is a British lawyer and former judge. A transgender woman, McCloud became the youngest Master in the High Court of Justice in 2006 when she was appointed as a deputy and later as a full judge in 2010. She is also a Chartered Psychologist and legal author. McCloud retired from the bench in April 2024.

Starmer and McCloud could be very good friends, especially considering Starmer’s career before politics.

Né (not née) and “Victoria” wasn’t the name he was given as a baby boy.

And no, “anything isn’t possible”. Starmer can only influence the making of legislation, he can’t overturn a judgment of the Supreme Court, just like Boris couldn’t. Stop spreading misinformation.

Parliament have always been able to make or change the legislation to promote the rights of men to access women’s spaces. No change is needed. Women are rightly wary of that line of attack.

This is a bit witch hunty/conspiracy theory tbh. It's not about VMC as an individual at all. It's about the ideas that VMC has gone on the radio (?) and spoken about.

I don't think normal individuals have the kind of power you're accusing them of.

I kind of agree with this but also do see their point that going into a specifically male area and removing any doubt of their trans-ness plus being in a more private location, getting undressed etc would probably increase the risk.

But as somebody else said, this is a male problem and not for women to budge up to accommodate male violence.

Anyway I'm just filling in arguments for the TRA side that I think make sense for a more rational argument, it's a pointless exercise really.

I kind of agree with this but also do see their point that going into a specifically male area and removing any doubt of their trans-ness plus being in a more private location, getting undressed etc would probably increase the risk.

A man wearing womens clothing is signaling that they may possibly be trans wherever they are. It doesn't become more apparent in the male changing rooms or toilets.

As mentioned above, there are lots of dodgy toilets around, and throughout my life ive had to make the decision to use them or not. Theres no evidence that any trans person life is at risk in a department store toilet, or the changing room in a health club. Its possible to avoid the potentially risky toilets, because those toilets are in risky places.

Its not just that men need to sort out their own problems and not force it onto women to solve, its men having to say that these men are not in any danger in the space.

Slightly off track but I watched a Liberal Voice for Women webinar last night which was good. https://liberalvoiceforwomen.telltix.com/events/liberalvoiceforwomen/6163894/o/04a7816a

I asked about what could be done about VM spreading lies about the law, other than complain to the BBC. No-one had any suggestions. For me this is a fundamental issue because as someone who only peaked in February, it was entirely due to the poor media coverage that I have arrived here years late!? Even small errors cannot be allowed to stand any more in this debate. If society is to be able to reach a reasonable consensus we need facts! That the TRAs have precious few of them needs to be made plain

ETA what I meant to say instead of ranting was that Sally Wainright was pivotal in the lesbian intervenors' paperwork and asked to be added as an individual to the submission - and was refused because she was an individual. So that is why Whittle's submission was probably refused. McCloud lives outside of the UK (as confirmed on the podcast). But if they think they were really worthy of a European challenge they could publish them? As could Amnesty? And another point was made that crowd funding without having details of a case is not entirely ethical

Merely a suggestion.

Feel free to update on Wikipedia.

Well that is a whole other thread....

A suggestion more suitable for a different forum, I would suggest.

A wonderful analysis of where Newscast might have done better from SEEN in Journalism. Excellent and detailed piece. I look forward to the BBC's replies to us all:
https://seeninjournalism.substack.com/p/we-told-bbc-politics-about-the-errors

Really good piece!

If it's helpful, this is mentioned in the (excellent) SEEN article just above:

Dr McCloud: ‘No trans organisations were party to the case’

Laura was unable to explain that no transgender advocate organisations applied to be a party to the case. She should also have pointed out that the Scotgov case itself was publicly funded with the country’s best lawyers by C£400,000) to make the case for transgender people. Laura was also unable to explain that it is vanishingly rare for the Supreme Court to take evidence from individuals.

I would add having seen Michael Foran's reviews of this among others, (he is worth looking up) it is also relevant that interventions would not be permitted unless they were to put forward an argument not already heard and presented. This was not the case.

This is a fantastic piece - detailed, coherent and a devastating critique of the BBC's political capture by transactivism that's led them into the swamp of political bias against women and safeguarding children.

A thousand recommends.

Ooo I love a bit of SEEN, me ☺️