U.K.’s First ‘Trans Judge’ Files Fruitless Appeal Against Supreme Court’s Gender Ruling – Twitchy

Two weeks ago, we told you how the U.K. Supreme Court ruled women are ‘adult human females’ and that trans women are, well, men.

The Leftist trans activists are not happy about this. At all. Now the U.K.’s first ‘trans’ judge indicates he’s going to file an appeal.

“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.”https://t.co/r6kwPaL8Yf

— Good Law Project (@GoodLawProject) April 29, 2025

Here’s what the Guardian says:

Britain’s first transgender judge is taking the UK to the European court of human rights over the supreme court’s ruling on biological sex.

The UK supreme court ruled earlier this month that the terms ‘woman’ and ‘sex’ in the Equality Act referred only to a biological woman and to biological sex, with subsequent guidance from the equality watchdog amounting to a blanket ban on trans people using toilets and other services of the gender they identify as.

Victoria McCloud, a retired judge, is applying to the European court of human rights to bring action against the UK for infringement of her article 6 rights.

Except there’s a problem with this appeal: according to Personnel Today, the U.K. Supreme Court won’t hear arguments from individuals:

[Akua] Reindorf also dismissed claims that the Supreme Court’s ruling excluded trans voices because judges did not allow interventions from two trans individuals in the case.

‘The Supreme Court does not hear evidence about lived experience; it considers legal arguments. A proposed intervener must show that they can make a distinctive contribution to the legal argument and assist the court with issues that go wider than their personal interest.’

She added that no trans advocacy groups intervened. Nevertheless, their case was ‘made thoroughly’ by leading practitioners for Amnesty and for the Scottish government.

‘Undermining the legitimacy of the judgment on such misconceived grounds helps nobody, and is all the more regrettable against the backdrop of misinformation that has been disseminated about the law relating to sex and gender from ostensibly trustworthy sources over many years,’ she concluded.

Recommended

So there goes that argument.

Pretty embarrassing that none of you knew the Supreme Court doesn’t hear from individuals.

— Me (@Naeluckmate) April 29, 2025

But on brand for the Guardian, frankly.

Wasn’t the job of the Supreme Court to rule on the law and it’s terms as it currently is, and not to rule on what some people might like it to be? https://t.co/zBvy9T9IFB

— Jim McLean (@DoubtingDeacon) April 30, 2025

Yes.

Former Master of the High Court pretends not to know that the Supreme Court never hears any evidence which was not before the lower courts and, in any event, that evidence from interested groups is not even admissible in order to interpret a statute. https://t.co/lAGix5YjL3

— Edward Levey (@ED_LeveyKC) April 30, 2025

Because he doesn’t care about what the Supreme Court’s rules are or what the Supreme Court does. He cares about his feelings. That’s it.

And as this thread points out, this is ‘spectacularly dishonest framing’ from the Guardian:

This is spectacularly dishonest framing by the Guardian. “appeals to the [ECtHR]” would normally connote the making of an actual appeal. All we’ve got is the announcement of a particularly shameless grift about some unspecified application. https://t.co/tM2OgIc5NU

— Jonathan Brown (@Broonjunior) April 30, 2025

So it’s not even really an appeal, but a grift.

Got it.

Since Dr McCloud was not a party to the case at any point, made no application to be heard in the Outer House or Inner House, and has never lived in the jurisdiction to which the provision which was challenged would have applied it is pretty difficult to see any viable route.

— Jonathan Brown (@Broonjunior) April 30, 2025

But his FEELINGS!

A crowdfunding proposal which was presented in good faith would specify precisely what was proposed and publish the preliminary advice relied upon to suggest the proposed application was even properly arguable never mind carrying any material prospect of success.

— Jonathan Brown (@Broonjunior) April 30, 2025

This was not in good faith.

We probably haven’t heard the end of the Left whining about this ruling, but it seems — as far as the U.K. courts are concerned — it’s settled law.

Thank goodness.

Editor’s Note: Unelected federal judges are hijacking President Trump’s agenda and insulting the will of the people