UK’s first trans judge appeals to European court of human rights over supreme court ruling

Britain’s first trans judge is taking legal action against the UK in the European Court of Human Rights following the Supreme Court’s decision regarding biological sex.

Earlier this month, the UK Supreme Court ruled that the terms “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act refer exclusively to biological women and biological sex. This decision, along with guidance from the equality watchdog, effectively bans trans individuals from using facilities aligned with their gender identity.

Victoria McCloud, a retired judge, is appealing to the European Court of Human Rights, claiming her Article 6 rights have been violated by the UK, according to ‘The Guardian’.

Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights ensures the right to a fair trial in both criminal and civil cases.

Last year, McCloud attempted to join the Supreme Court litigation initiated by the gender-critical group For Women Scotland against the Scottish government, fearing significant impacts on legal protections for transgender women, but her request was denied.

Currently serving as a litigation strategist at W-Legal, McCloud told the Guardian: “The basis is that the Supreme Court refused to hear me, or my evidence, to provide them with information about the impact on those trans people affected by the judgment and failed to give any reasons.”

“These are two basic tenets of normal justice. Protest groups represented women in this case, but ordinary women were not fully represented. Disabled individuals were also not considered, leading to the Conservatives suggesting trans people use accessible toilets, impacting those with disabilities. These issues have not been addressed.”

The Supreme Court judgment and subsequent guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) have created uncertainty for the UK’s trans community, leaving many businesses and services unsure about the facilities they should provide.

In an “interim update,” the EHRC stated that in public settings, like workplaces and cafes, “trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use women’s facilities and trans men (biological women) should not be permitted to use men’s facilities.”

Over the weekend, Cabinet Office minister Pat McFadden commented that barring transgender individuals from using facilities aligned with their gender identity was “a logical consequence.”

McCloud expressed that instead of clarity, the judgment, along with government and commission statements, have “brought chaos.”

“There’s chaos because we’ve got the Supreme Court saying one thing, and we’ve got the government and the EHRC saying another, coupled with planning rules from the previous government discouraging inclusive bathrooms.”

Meanwhile, Carla Denyer MP, Green Party co-leader, inquired how the government plans to address “both the distress within the trans community and further confusion for employers, businesses, and service providers trying to interpret the Supreme Court ruling.”

In a letter to Equalities Minister Bridget Phillipson, Denyer questioned whether trans and non-binary individuals were consulted in the EHRC’s recent update and warned about the “risks of encouraging vigilante policing of public facilities.”

Denyer urged for the interim update’s withdrawal “until comprehensive guidance is issued, considering the experiences of all affected parties.”

NHS resident doctors also criticised the Supreme Court ruling on gender as being “unsupported by science or medicine.”

At the British Medical Association’s resident doctors conference in London, a motion was passed declaring that “attempting to impose a rigid binary has no basis in science or medicine.”

Although passed at the conference, the motion will only become BMA policy if voted on at the union’s annual meeting later this year.

The NHS employs tens of thousands of resident doctors, previously known as junior doctors.