'No Trans person was involved in Supreme Court FWS v Scottish Ministers'

[ArabellaScott]

I keep reading this! It's specious!

Once and for all

Amnesty intervened in the case, and was represented by a non-binary lawyer, Lui Asquith.

https://www.russell-cooke.co.uk/our-people/lui-asquith

'Acted for Amnesty International UK which intervened in the case of: For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC '

'Lui Asquith (pronouns they/them) is Director of Legal, Policy and Operations at Mermaids. Lui is a qualified lawyer, with a background in LGBTI activism. They moved to Mermaids over two years ago to focus on improving the lives of trans, non-binary and gender diverse young people on the front line.'

https://podcasts.apple.com/se/podcast/how-can-we-raise-the-bar-on-trans-rights-with-lui-asquith/id1068563276?i=1000506713109

https://www.russell-cooke.co.uk/news-and-insights/news/the-uk-supreme-court-hands-down-judgment-in-for-women-scotland-ltd-v-the-scottish-ministers

'Lui Asquith of Russell-Cooke LLP represented Amnesty International UK, which intervened in the case.'

Is it just that Lui Asquith is the wrong sort of trans person?

Also...how do they know?

What definition are they using? Because stonewalls definition is...fairly broad. I'm mean, lots of us on here are trans by some definitions.

They are making a lot of assumptions about people's Gender ID there. I thought the mantra was you couldnt spot trans people because they passed so well.

Did Stonewall decide not to apply to intervene? If so, what with them being a big trans charity, it’s quite the conundrum.

That’s a lot of assuming about people from their presentation. I thought the enlightened ones were supporting all presentations as valid, and people are trans whether they are comfortable presenting that way publicly or not. The least they could do is say the assume (based on stereotypical appearances that they can see) that there were no trans people involved.

Quite. I thought without genital checks no one can possibly know anything at all. Ever.

Any news on the Victoria McCloud submission to the ECHR, which I believe was on these grounds (Article 6?). I think the argument was that the ruling was procedurally unfair because the trans intervenors's applications (McCloud and Stephen Whittle) were rejected with no explanation given.

This is what Google AI is saying about McCloud's claims (to be taken with a pinch of salt as it mainly links to the GLP 🙄)

1. The "Chilling Effect" on Trans OrganisationsTrans community advocates have pointed out that grass-roots trans charities and organisations in the UK operate under severe resource constraints and intense public scrutiny. Entering a high-profile Supreme Court case as a named intervenor carries immense risk, including:Targetted press hostility and public harassment.Regulatory vulnerability, such as investigations by the Charity Commission.Severe financial strain or potential bankruptcy if proceedings draw out.Because of this "chilling effect," trans advocacy groups often rely on strategic legal partnerships—like working with the Good Law Project—to put forward qualified individuals who have the legal expertise to carry the argument without destroying a small charity

.2. McCloud and Whittle Were the Proxy for Trans VoicesDr. Victoria McCloud and Professor Stephen Whittle did not apply simply as interested citizens; they applied as the explicit vehicle to bring trans representation to the court, backed heavily by the wider community and legal funds.They were uniquely positioned because they were the architects of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the UK's first openly trans High Court judge. Since no corporate trans entity could safely apply, their joint application was designed to serve as the structural representation for trans people holding GRCs.

The Core Procedural ArgumentMcCloud's submission to the ECtHR argues that by rejecting the only viable mechanism through which trans perspectives were being offered (their joint application) while simultaneously approving multiple interventions from opposing advocacy groups, the Supreme Court created a profound, structural imbalance.From her perspective, saying "trans organisations didn't apply" ignores the harsh socio-legal climate that prevented them from doing so, and it does not justify the court completely closing the door on the alternative legal representation that did come forward.

I don't think McCloud's submission will be successful, but it would be good to have that confirmed.

Amnesty et al were entirely representing the trans ideological position, fed to them wholesale by transactivist organisations. The mere fact of 'no one actually trans stood in the room at the time and emoted' has sod all to do with anything.

As were the Scottish Government

The UK Supreme Court does not
on any topic
take individual representation

McClouds ECHR issue is that he did not live in the UK at the date of the judgement so was not affected by it.

Indeed! The SG were wholly and entirely supporting trans people (some might say they still are!). That was why FWS brought the case AGAINST the SG in the first place.
This needs to be shouted from the rooftops!

Edit:typo

"trans charities and organisations in the UK operate under severe resource constraints"

Stonewall and Mermaids of course run from someone's kitchen table on a budget of sixpence a year. 🙄

The Amnesty written intervention was utterly woeful. I'm surprised any lawyer would boast of having a hand in it.😀

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/knowledge-hub/all-resources/amnesty-international-uks-third-party-intervention-supreme-court-appeal-case-women/

https://archive.ph/wip/5kObW

Nothing since August last year as far as I can see.

https://gardencourtchambers.co.uk/legal-challenge-to-european-court-of-human-rights-on-behalf-of-uks-first-trans-judge/

Raised £29k, with a target of £150k.

All this has been quite the eye opener for anyone who had respect for the legal system.

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

Thank you. Still waiting then I guess. From what I understand, McCloud and Whittle are arguing that, as affected individuals with GRCs, their particular interests were not adequately represented by Amnesty (as a broader human rights group rather than trans specific) and the SG, and when the Supreme Court refused their applications to intervene, they should have provided justification. So they are trying to use Article 6 to get FWS reheard on procedural grounds, which is why they can go straight to Strasbourg, rather than having to spend years going through the domestic courts.

A group like Translucent were free to apply to intervene (presumably they didn't as they would have effectively had to argue against self ID because the case related to those with GRCs only).

Hopefully, the ECHR will refuse to hear it. If individual gender critical women had applied to intervene, I assume they would also have been refused. I think the aim is to sow doubt and confusion about the FWS ruling. Even if the ECHR said the case should be reheard with representation from trans individuals, the outcome would likely be the same. McCloud managed to gets lots of publicity when this move was announced, with media taking a sympathetic view that trans people's human rights had been breached. If McCloud's case gets thrown out, I wonder how much media attention that will get?

I'd love to know what happened with McCloud and the GLP. The GLP were initially supporting the case, but they seem to have parted ways... The GLP are instead focusing on bringing judicial reviews (unsuccessfully).

Someone mentioned upthread that McCloud lives in Ireland, but I think McCloud was still resident in the UK at the time of the ruling. I could be wrong about that though.

Exactly.

The reality is there is big and very wealthy LGBT/ trans charity sector that could easily have intervened they just didn't want to because they relied on SNP and Amnesty their was their choice. It would have cost them money they wanted to pay in salaries and other things. Then they complained .afterwards tabout the result.

Stonewall is the largest LGBTQ+ charity in the UK, reporting an annual income of approximately £4.7 million in its recent accounts.

LGBT Foundation: Around £3.7 million to £4 million

Gendered Intelligence: Reported a total gross income of £1,878,614 for the financial year ending June 30, 2025. The charity focuses on increasing understanding of gender diversity and improving the quality of life for trans people, particularly youth.

Mermaids: Reported a total gross income of £1,337,663 for the financial year ending March 31, 2025. Mermaids supports transgender, non-binary, and gender-diverse children, young people, and their families.

Not A Phase: Grew its income to £490,000 for the year leading up to mid-2025, supported by individual donations, brand partnerships, and merchandise.

We all know the big mistake the SNP and Amnesty made is not to employ the real legal experts in this matter. :)

Why was Good Law Practice not allowed in court?

Why did the SNP refuse to use such a brilliant organisation?

I would really like for all this to go to the ECtHR, because it would mean for the first time women's rights and legal protections, and gay rights and legal protections would have to be thoroughly unpicked and considered alongside gender identity rights and legal protections. As they never have been before. It would not be a case of trans trumps all, as the SCJ went into in depth, other people have rights and legal protections too.

As mentioned before, if the case finds that gender ideology is trampling women and gay rights, the outcome of that case could potentially have a very serious impact on law and policy across Europe, bringing it into line with England.

However I also suspect that should the answer be in some form, as it would have to be, 'other people have rights too, sorry, but they do' - suddenly the ECtHR would be as trivial and unimportant a thing as the Supreme Court became, the second it protected women and gay rights.

Regardless of who was or was not involved, the judgement was founded upon the law as it stands and how the law needs to be implemented to make sense.

This is essentially what the ECtHR said regarding the Freddy McConnell case, which they refused to hear as they deemed it inadmissable. The child has rights too (to have an accurate biological record of their birth) and FM's wish to be seen as a man doesn't override that. The UK Supreme Court's ruling was within the wider margin of appreciation it is afforded when balancing rights related to sex/gender.

https://todaysfamilylawyer.co.uk/echr-rejects-appeal-by-trans-man-to-be-named-as-childs-father-rather-than-mother/

*Edited for typos

I know it's only AI, but this part -
Trans community advocates have pointed out that grass-roots trans charities and organisations in the UK operate under severe resource constraints and intense public scrutiny. Entering a high-profile Supreme Court case as a named intervenor carries immense risk, including:Targetted press hostility and public harassment.Regulatory vulnerability, such as investigations by the Charity Commission.Severe financial strain or potential bankruptcy if proceedings draw out.

Sex Matters and the lesbian intervenors were prepared to take the risk. Imagine their finances compared to those of the LGBTQ+ groups mentioned above.

And above all you have the three ordinary (well, extra-ordinary) women who have put themselves on the line, time and time again.