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?

I was cautiously optimistic that the Supreme Court would come to the right decision.

Trans litigation (which seems to have developed into its own very niche specialism in recent years) holds gender ideology up to proper, rigorous scrutiny by people with fine legal brains who are supposed to be politically impartial, and it just can't stand up to that sort of scrutiny. It gets exposed as nonsensical bullshit. That's why the gender critical side almost always wins.

I also think that if parliament actually intended trans identifying males with a gender recognition certificate to be considered members of the female sex for all purposes (despite having their own protected characteristic, and despite the obvious implications for women), the legislation would have said that. It's such an extreme position when you think about it that it's really difficult to read between the lines of legislation which doesn't actually say that and imply that meaning in using a common sense or purposive approach.

How long do the ECtHR have to decide whether they will consider the application? (If that is the correct legal term)

I was cautiously optimistic that the Supreme Court would come to the right decision.

By the time you reach that level, an awful lot of the messier nuance will have been ironed out by subordinate courts, and the Supremes (who is with me for a movement to start using that term in the UK ?) have a fairly clear task of line-drawing.

However, they can only work with what they have been given. They can't invent new law, and they can't repeal old ones. All they can do is provide the final instruction on how existing law must (not should. must) be applied.

Once they have interpreted, it's up to parliament to address any deficiencies, if they so choose.

Very few things in law are as simple as this.

Found the answer in the article - 6 months, so until Feb 19th 2026.

Amazing. So in the unlikely event that this case will be successful, it will be approximately 10 years or more before any changes will result from this.

Surely, even the most stubborn organisations, who are determined not to follow the law, can't kick the can down the road for that long?

Imagine how many unisex facilities could be installed in that time, allowing everyone to just get on with their lives and respect other people's boundaries. Although I suspect that won't happen because we will have a constant backdrop of these cases. Maybe the GLP will eventually run out of steam if people get fed up with donating to them.

Or, they could lobby parliament to change the law. But they seem unwilling to do that 🤔

Trans lawyers - VM and Oscar I’m a Special Non Binary?

Amazing. So in the unlikely event that this case will be successful, it will be approximately 10 years or more before any changes will result from this.

The prisoner votes and Distillers case took years as I recall.

Because the ECtHR has no enforcement powers it can take it's time. Also as it's inevitably concerned with legislative challenges, it pays to wait a bit in case a change of government makes the case redundant.

And until then the ruling stands
and discrimination cases in the UK will go through on the back of it

and by ten years time the "gender affirmed" teens will be hitting their mid twenties and asking questions of their parents .......

Quite right it was not a trial it was an appeal

Surely, even the most stubborn organisations, who are determined not to follow the law, can't kick the can down the road for that long?

UK courts are very very reluctant to add anything beyond proven expenses to damages (for little people, obviously).#

However one thing that is almost guaranteed to make a court sympathetic to enhanced damages is when the defendant clearly set out to break the law in it's conduct (it's for situations like this that word "egregious" was invented).

So as the cases are bought and lost, the defendants could lose an awful lot of what really matters to them. Which isn't principle (you are an idiot if you are think the courts care. It's lucre. Mullah. Mammons milk.

I'm not an expert in corporate law, but I am pretty certain a special place in hell exists for boards and board members who can be shown to have acted (against advice) in a manner that cost the company money. (Be curious if any experts could speak to that).

So a lot of people might act all "Pah ! What do I care for the law !?" - right up to the moment the reality is laid out for them.

acted (against advice) in a manner that cost the company money

Or as seems more likely in many of these cases, cost the taxpayer money.

I'm not aware of any statutory duty for government departments (or their organs f'narr, f'narr) to minimise waste.

Indeed, and we know from Yougov polls that the general public support women having single sex spaces, sports etc.

The Darlington nurses case is coming up end of Oct/start of Nov. The optics of it are terrible for the NHS Trust. Six nurses talking legal action, one of whom has PTSD after being abused as a child. And HR had complaints from dozens of nurses, and they were told they needed to be re-educated 🙄. And there were reports of inappropriate behaviour by the man in the female changing rooms. How can they possibly justify spending money defending this fiasco to members of the public who are pissed off about NHS waiting times etc?

@Talkinpeace would you be able to share that? I’d love to read it.

Posted at 6pm the day before the ruling

https://x.com/MForstater/status/1911830768201986289

Thank you

Good. So six months until this nonsense claim is rejected by the ECHR.

Wow. On that scale, we got a 10.

Nobody knows what the frame of the legal challenge to the ECHR would look like, since it has not been published. There has not yet been published any claim that has been made.

And as Barristers have variously described there is no substantive claim that anyone can think of.

The only thing i can extrapolate (from my amateur legal studies) is that they could claim that the state (UK) are interfering with rights of privacy about ones sex where, it is not necessary, to do so.

That is the Goodwin case I do believe.

But the SC ruling confined itself as to where it does matter, ergo Sport, same sex spaces, and being same sex attracted, amongst other things.

I was totally confident as to where the SC ruling was going to go, as posted quite a lot.

The law is mostly logical.

I am totally confident that this is all just hot air as someone up thread said.

Totally understand how you feel. I used to be a lot more, for want of a better word, understanding. My attitude has definitely hardened under the onslaught. But I don't think they were all "happy enough". Some of them were probably just keeping their heads down, same as most of us had to in real life.

I am totally confident that this is all just hot air as someone up thread said.

I think everyone with an informed opinion thinks that. Even the neutral comment from Maugham upthread indicates he didn't think much of the case. If there was any chance of a win he would be trying to claim credit.

It will be probably be thrown out early on. The application might not even be accepted as McCloud refused to challenge the Supreme Court in the UK back in October 2024 when his application to intervene was refused and the case was active. The Euro court isn't interested in people who refuse to use existing legal resources in their own country.

Anyway while it will be publicity for TAs winging about the law, it will when it fails further strengthen the side of reality. By then FWS will have defeated the Scottish government for the third time.

I was going to make a joke about keeping them busy, but ...

I actually do think it's shit that this man is bleeding people for a hopeless case, though. Much as I'm glad it's pointless, it's unfair to con people.

He's still trying to concoct something apparently coherent and reasonable.

Does he even have standing to bring a case to the ECHR about a UK Supreme Court judgment, given that he is no longer UK resident?

That would be the best way out, they can claim that it was the lack of standing that lost him the case, as with Mermaids/LGBA. Rather than the general shite nature of it.