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?

If I am remembering correctly, McCloud wrote the Bench guidelines that directed judges to use preferred pronouns.

I think if “trans” was a cutesy shorthand for transubstantiation and people claimed to be “trans” it presupposes that “trans” is a thing.

Microsoft Word - UKSC 2024.0042 Written Intervention - Amnesty International (as filed)

Solid gold sandwiches on the expenses account?

I think so too

Oh wow, some blasts from the past on the list of participants there.

Interestingly 5 years ago I probably would have agreed but we are well past that point now.

I was actually just thinking the same thing. I had a lot more tolerance and sympathy at the beginning but now I'm just sick to death of it all. The constant bleating about TERFs and the erosion of women's rights, all of it.

They've actually achieved the opposite to what they wanted. I'm so sick of hearing their bullshit that I'd quite like to dump them all on a desert island, surrounded with man eating sharks and tell them to crack on and invent their own little pretend country. Or starve to death because they don't know how to do anything but whinge. Honestly, it could go either way.

Yeah! I took the initiative (pun intended) to
archive the page (seeing as Garden Court were using ‘Trans Activist’ in an entirely positive manner and at least a couple of the Trans Activists on the list have since been disgraced, eg Jess Bradley).

archive.ph/QV66M

Does anyone else find it bloody terrifying that he was a judge?

@TheUnusuallyQuerulentMxLauraBrown @MrsOvertonsWindow

The problem for Stonewall was the fact that the SC case was purely deciding if sex meant biological sex I.e. sex observed at birth, or if it included legal or certified sex I.e. as recorded on a birth certificate including as changed by a GRC. This was less than 10,000 people with a GRC.

It was already settled in law that trans people without a GRC remain their sex observed at birth. Stonewall would effectively have had to admit to the SC, and the world, that their whole business model was legally incorrect i.e. stonewall law was a lie and they knew all along it was a lie. The cost of that and the backlash from all the trans people without a GRC meant they couldn’t apply to intervene and retain credibility.

McCloud was actually a very good judge, in my opinion, as someone who has actually appeared in front of them. Before they became embroiled in all of this. It’s a shame.

I think that at this point there has been too much light.

Trans widows

Jan Morris's daughter's writing about how he treated his family.

Wondering how Goodwin's 4 children were affected by the court's decision that he had an Article 8 right to hide their existence.

The guidelines which were so biased they've had to be rewritten because of their abysmal bias in favour of all the male sex offenders, paedophiles and murderers demanding to be called she and her in court.

“We are told we must use dangerous spaces such as male changing rooms and loos when we have female anatomy. If we are raped we must go to male rape crisis. We are searched by male police, to ‘protect’ female police from, I assume, our female anatomy.”

I know it's not their job and I can't see why they would, but I wish the SC, in rejecting his challenge would add that '... and to clarify, no man has female anatomy'.

Nail it down once and for all.

Well, they - mccloud and the Glp- have raised a lot of money from their supporters and are going to spend it by paying themselves to challenge it anyway they can. It’s the long con.

We chose to have bottom surgery and now we want women to pay the price for having to dodge any vilification male whilst they undress or speak about theif trauma at thd hands if men of recover from major surgery or recover from major mental trauma or get ready for work or change theif tampons or sanitary towels…and on and on ..

Exactly. It is just little more than the Guardian trying to make out this is important "news".

Not worth falling for let alone giving it a FWR thread title that will be picked up on by search engines as an "important" issue.

It's still only £150 6 hours later.

At this rate it's going to take a while for him to hit his target.

Libby Brooks is just a client journalist for Jolyon Maugham.

Last week it was a rehashed story about his wife being misgendered due to the Supreme Court baddies, now it's another rehashed article on the McCloud case.

I don't understand how the Supreme Court judgment makes any difference to the the 'we are two sexes at once' position.

Isn't the two sexes position already baked into the GRA given the exceptions it contains for hereditary peerages and parent status being based on the biological role (mother/father), not GRC legal status?

That's a wee shame.

It also makes exceptions for sex specific criminal offences.

I think he and the good laugh project keep bringing these hopeless challenges for 2 reasons

1. it’s lucrative, especially for Jolyon Maugham. He lays himself whether he wins or loses
2. they can keep claiming that the decision is “contested” or “subject to legal review/action” and tell organisations not to comply with it yet because it might change again because of their devastating legal prowess.

and when they lose, it’s proof again of their victimhood and transphobia,

there’s no downside for them. None.

Bit weird that someone who has worked as a judge doesn't know what the Supreme Court is for.

The Supreme Court ruling was to work out what the current law actually says. There is no amount of testimony about trans people's lived experience that will affect that. The court heard a lot of evidence from a lot of sources where the information was pertinent to the decision. McCloud's feelings on the matter were not considered relevant.

McCloud is welcome to contribute details of lived experience to campaign for changes to the law which will, if such proposals gain sufficient support to be seriously considered, be rigorously scrutinised in fair democratic processes to ensure that any changes are rational and protect everyone's rights.

However, campaigning for more mixed-sex services, on the grounds that although women's single-sex services are important, ensuring that anyone who can't use a women-only service has other options (and not just a men-only service that might be equally unsuitable) is also important, is a far more productive use of time because that doesn't have to be synonymous with attacking women's rights.

Was that the desired outcome for Goodwin? If so that is very unpleasant...

I haven't followed the issue at the time of Goodwin and the European Court, but my understanding is that it was based on the premise of Goodwin `passing' (though he was anonymous) and the whole reason of getting a new birth certificate and all was that showing the original BC would be outing. Is that right?

So how it resulted in people who by no imagination "pass" taking advantage of the ruling to change their BC is what I don't understand - I guess passing people used as Trojan Horses to extend the process to non-passing people? Because of course you can't formally define the idea of "passing"...

Thanks. I wonder when they put that there as I hadn’t seen this before.