Judge McCloud seeks re-hearing of the Supreme Court FWS appeal

[ArabellaScott]

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/aug/18/transgender-judge-supreme-court-case-biological-sex

'The UK’s first transgender judge has launched a case against the UK in the European court of human rights challenging the process that led to the supreme court’s ruling on biological sex.
The retired judge Victoria McCloud, who is now a litigation strategist at W-Legal, is seeking a rehearing of the case, arguing that the supreme court undermined her article 6 rights to a fair trial when it refused to hear representation from her and did not hear evidence from any other trans individuals or groups.'

The Amnesty representative was, I believe, non-binary?

https://x.com/peter_daly/status/1957409789874409880?s=46&t=ZX_bLozRqm8etdGICMcAvA

Peter Daly has also added his thoughts:

Success for McCloud would fundamentally undermine the rule of law because no SC judgment would be reliable - a would-be intervenor could pop up months or years after the event and demand a do-over.

Within the Equality Act, the protected characteristic is Gender Reassignment (GR), which does not specify anything about trans identity nor surgery.

Within the Gender Recognition Act, there is no reference to, or differentiation specified for, surgery or hormones.

If McCloud wants additional or different entitlements for some but not all with the PC of GR or for a special type of GRA, he is, in effect, looking for both the EA and GRA to be revised or re-written.

I would bet a lot of money on this and successive governments avoiding re-opening the EA or GRA like they would avoid the plague (should we now say ‘a pandemic?). If they did, the warring factions within the TRA ‘community’ would be something to behold. In the meantime, the pretty constant societal position of wanting single sex provision would be evident.

And what happened to the Trans Equality Legal Initiative- TELI?

it launched with such a fanfare and support from real barristers in various actual chambers yet the whole thing seems to have fizzled out like a damp squib:

https://gardencourtchambers.co.uk/event/trans-equality-legal-initiative-launch-conference/

Did someone realise it was all a load of reality denying cobblers and kill it off quietly?

This is probably a really stupid question: aren’t fair trial rules supposed to apply to those who are subject to being tried?

https://www.tiktok.com/@pinknews/video/7517287542975237398

'in many ways its not that different from a draq queen's job. Both wear wigs, both have to convince their audience of a narrative, everything is about storytelling. You're also performing a sort of theatrical role, which has parallels with gendered roles in society'

Mx Davies is well cringe.

The NB fad for teens is definitely taking it’s
dying gasps - nothing is more establishment than a NB barrister.

Or indeed the Good Laugh Project? And here's their excuses:

"No trans organisations applied to intervene. There’s a reason for that. It’s because they know from bitter experience what legal proceedings mean for them. They mean punishment beatings in the press, that the Charity Commission is likely to investigate, that their staff will face threats of violence and that it may well kill the organisation.

"We know this because the organisation I run, Good Law Project, has funded and supported their legal actions in the past and we have seen the consequences. We asked again all of those we knew in Scotland – and they refused. But we did persuade the two architects of the Gender Recognition Act that created that certificate to intervene: an academic, Stephen Whittle, and until she resigned because of what she experienced as a judge, our only “out” trans High Court judge, Victoria McCloud. Both trans, both with a gender recognition certificate.

"Three barristers worked on their intervention – two are now KCs – and they spent hundreds of hours and many tens of thousands of pounds working on it. We funded them. But without even giving reasons, the Supreme Court flatly refused. And they were left with not even one trans person before them."

So, that seems to translate as "We didn't have the balls to put our (grifted) money where our considerable mouths are in case we drew attention to ourselves (please don't infer from this that we've got anything to hide). And we spent a lot of money on a failed intervention because the SC doesn't hear from individuals. Somewhat surprisingly, none of the expensive KCs seemed to know this..."

goodlawproject.org/the-supreme-court-ignored-trans-voices-im-ashamed-of-what-our-law-has-become/

Peter Daly is of course rather well acquainted with such things.
If he calls it hogwash
its hogwash

Ouch, that’s a pretty big burn from Daly!

The founder Olivia Campbell-Cavendish is a male who only passed their law degree two years ago. His first BA was in a ballet.

Any organisation could have applied to intervene yet none did. There are a number of possibilities:

1 - Basically because with the Scottish government and Amnesty involved arguing the trans case there was no need too.
2 - The organisations actually thought there was a good chance of losing and didn't want to take the risk of losing money and bad publicity. [Biggest reason in my opinion]
3 - They were arrogantly convinced that the pro-women side would lose because women are useless.
4 - Winning the case would involve making "transphobic" arguments which ignored the existence of NBs and genderfluid types. In fact the Scottish government case relied on all sorts of points like only transwomen with certificates were actually women.

According to Joylon the trans orgs were too scared backing my second reason:

No trans organisations applied to intervene. There’s a reason for that. It’s because they know from bitter experience what legal proceedings mean for them. They mean punishment beatings in the press, that the Charity Commission is likely to investigate, that their staff will face threats of violence and that it may well kill the organisation.
https://goodlawproject.org/the-supreme-court-ignored-trans-voices-im-ashamed-of-what-our-law-has-become/

The Gender froups rely on being able to lie and they don't want to risk being questioned as it may undermine their own position and above all their ability to make money. This is why Stonewall didn't get involved.

They mean punishment beatings in the press, that the Charity Commission is likely to investigate, that their staff will face threats of violence and that it may well kill the organisation.

This doesn't seem particularly different to what LGB alliance and Sex Matters have faced.

The big difference seems to be the ability to make a coherent case.

Amnesty have never yet spoken out about why the arguments made by their non binary trans identifying solicitor were rejected.

ScotGov have pretended their arguments were not rejected.

The other groups did not intervene because their echo chambers told them they were certain to win.

Hence why they were absolutely floored by the result.
And are still peddling the lie that EHRC guidance can overrule a court ruling

They have to keep their funding bubble inflated and the persecution complex inflamed.

Yesssss. This. 💯

Three barristers worked on their intervention – two are now KCs – and they spent hundreds of hours and many tens of thousands of pounds working on it.

Many tens of thousands of pounds? How?!

Amnesty didn’t even publish the written submission that their TIF advocate spoke to.

The ehrct already said thet it was against human rights too insist that someone have genital surgery to obtain gender recognition and aa such all the benefits that go with it hence the grc needing men to live as women rather than have had surgery. As such giving extra rights to transwomen who have had genital surgery is a no go.
For a former judge its incomprehensible that he
A ,hasn't read the Goodwin judgement
B, thinks that rights should be dependent on self sterilising with dangerous and rarely successful surgery.
This man is on a grift as he knows that the only way to overturn the sc judgement is to change the law and strip all rights from women and no government is going to do that openly (in the uk) its a vote looser and the days of doing it in secrecy are gone. Also any law that did remove women's rights would go the way of the named person bill in Scotland ie found to be an unlawful impingement on human rights and binned.
As much as mcloud and his TRA friends may hate it women have human rights too

Thanks for this thread. My only reservation would be to plead that nobody should use invented Stonewall language at all: Every time 'trans' is used, it implies agreement that 'transformation' into the opposite sex is possible.

By analogy : We are not 'phobic' or 'hate-filled' or 'Mars-Critical' when declining to agree a colleague has 'transitioned' into a Martian, by painting his face green and dressing in silver foil, which he finds exciting. His private fetish is something he should carry out in private, behind closed doors, with consenting adults.

There Is No Such Thing As Trans.

I gave you a Like for that, but now feel the need to point out that there is no such thing as a "trans woman".

Lots of gold plated kimonos I guess.

How GLP spends so much and fails so badly is a mystery. Not a bad mystery there are worse things the money could be spent on.

Meanwhile FWS and Sex Matters manages to win cases on a shoestring.

Supreme Court judges are the country's best legal experts. Why would they seek the opinions of people who know considerably less about the law than they do? It's not like Strictly Come Dancing, where the expert judges give their opinions but the general public also gets a say.

I suspect the rise of social media and the opening up of "old" media (in terms of comment pages and the requirement for a 'both sides of the argument' approach, even if that means giving equal weight to some absolute loony tune argument) means people think they have a right to be heard.

I mean, I fully appreciate that's exactly what I'm doing here on a forum, but what I write here is of little consequence. I'm not demanding that my voice is heard in the Supreme Court because they've said something with which I don't agree!

This seems to be a case of supreme male confidence that he is right and everyone else is wrong? Or just wishful thinking exacerbated by a divorce from reality?

Well he's a trans-identified male, it's par for the course 😆

A spectacular hourly rate, I would imagine...

I understand what you are saying, but my acknowledgement of the existence of the Catholic Church does not imply a belief in transubstantiation.

ETA and neither does my use of the word transubstantiation!

(ETA2 Imagine MN in Tudor Britain!)

It’s a very tricky and circular thing, if a rule to allow men without a penis to use women’s spaces, we then have no way of knowing their eligibility without the ‘genital inspections’ they are so fond of invoking.

Thinking about it, that may be a feature rather than a bug?