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?

Bless their little hearts.

I reckon the crowdfunding isn't about the money for him, it's about the validation, the applause, the "You go girl!"

It's interesting how someone who was previously a judge is capable of damaging public perception of and trust in the profession.

I expect this is why he has struck out on his own rather than stick within the parameters of Jolly-On’s organisation.

Everyone wants to be the figurehead, even when the ship is clearly sinking.

Tough they were happy enough when the violent misogynistic men larping as women were bullying and trampolining all over women's rights because it benefited them so now they have to face the consequences of their silent tasit consent.
As I taught both my dc if you fly with the crows you'll be shot with them

Yes, I think you’re right.

I think there are different reasons for the appeals or claims about impending appeals seeming attractive or viable - all of which involve some level of denial.

Some hope that doubts about the finality of the ruling will prevent organisations from changing policy and this can be sustained until they can return to what was the status quo (believing the vast majority of people are on their side). Some just can’t come to terms with it and appeals ‘keep hope alive’ - not dissimilar to buying a lottery ticket 🎫 n the hope that this could fix their financial issues. Some think there is a chance of winning. I guess, a combination of all or some of these could also be in play.

I felt very nervous about the outcome of the ruling. I recall reading Maya’s post about the range of possible outcomes and what each would result in for women. I don’t think I would have been willing to sit back and just accept that the definition of women in law included males. However, I think that organisations and charities that align with my position would be smarter about next steps. I think they would likely have started lobbying hard to change legislation rather than challenge the SC ruling. I think they would have acknowledged that this solution would take a while, there were no quick fixes, but they wouldn’t rest until sex was recognised as a protected characteristic.

I called it wrong, I thought that the court would rule that although it caused lots of issues, a man with a GRC was a woman under the PC of sex. Never been so glad to be wrong!

I have bookmarked Maya's tweet from the night before
when the whole 'GC side' were so nervous.

At the same time people like Jolyon were 100% that ScotGov and Amnesty would prevail

Their bubble still wants to believe that the ruling was not final.
It is.

Well it will be the last bit to go under ...

As I taught both my dc if you fly with the crows you'll be shot with them

Love that saying, very apt.

I too think tough for those who remained resolutely silent and watched on as women were bullied and threatened.

VM's leaving drinks were characterised more by senior female barristers and judges biting their tongues and rolling eyes than by crazies trying to attack VM.

If VM wrote the guidelines insisting that rapists with sudden onset post arrest dysphoria should be referred to as 'she', he really is reaping what he sowed.

…..this is key.

Those on the side of sex being a protected characteristic relating to biology kept in mind the range of outcomes and had a strategy in place for different scenarios.

These wanting gender identity to trump sex rely on a sense in entitlement and the view that their preference should prevail for reasons (inclusion, dignity, privacy) that should exclusively apply to those with trans identities and nobody else.

Same.

It will? I think we need a diagram. Is this a physics question, or is it more metaphorical?

@RapidOnsetGenderCriticAll hearings in courts are called trials. It just really means judges hear evidence.

Sure, but the right to a fair trial seems on the face of it to refer to a person, not to a philosophical position.

On reflection I think most ships sink arse-up. Which somehow makes the idea of the figurehead sinking first funnier.

So, I'm trying to get all this straight in my head because I've lost the plot.

VM wants his case to be considered by the ECtHR. The GLP is not involved with this.

The GLP are taking their case to the High Court to challenge the EHRC's guidance. But the EHRC's guidance will follow the Supreme Court judgement. So the GLP want the High Court to rule against the EHRC for basing their guidance on the Supreme Court. How does that even work?

And what other legal action are the GLP planning as they have crowdfunded a huge amount of money?

I saw Maya Forstater talking about this, and her take on why VM is taking this case, that many legal experts are saying doesn't have merit, is to cause confusion around the judgement. The Guardian have already jumped on this with a one-sided article.

And I saw another massively unbalanced piece on ITV News, where the talked about it being taken to the ECtHR, but as this would take potentially years, the statutory guidance will be implemented in the meantime. The insinuation seemed to be that the ECtHR would disagree with the SC, but, in the meantime, trans people would have their human rights breached. I wonder if these media outlets will report honestly if these cases get knocked back as not having merit?

Ha ha ha ha ha

https://x.com/Wonkypolicywonk/status/1957707592790126945

The bottom line (a phrase I will probably come to regret using, when the revolution comes) is that you can't sue the Supreme Court (nor, as it happens, parliament, but let's not introduce too much reality).

However what you can do is try to bully anyone or anything under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court into somehow not following the actual logical conclusion of the April ruling by lots of big words, bluster and an appearance or having endless funds with which to fight. It's exactly the same approach big companies use to achieve a settlement even if they would lose in court.

Quite happy to be corrected if I am wrong.

🤣

Trans lawyers take Supreme Court ruling on biological sex to European court | ITV News

Weirdly the crowdfunder total seems to have gone down. It’s now £9.8k

maybe a few people donated, thought it through and withdrew their donations?