Trans Judge Victoria McCloud Challenges Supreme Court Ruling in Europe

Victoria McCloud, the United Kingdom’s first openly transgender judge, has initiated legal proceedings against the British government at the European Court of Human Rights. This action stems from a recent Supreme Court ruling that defined ‘sex’ in legal terms as referring exclusively to “biological women,” effectively excluding transgender women from legal protections.

McCloud, who retired in 2024 and is currently a litigation strategist at W-Legal, argues that her Article 6 rights to a fair trial, as enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), were violated. She claims the Supreme Court refused to hear her representation or engage with any transgender individuals during the deliberations.

In April, the Supreme Court’s judgment concluded a protracted legal dispute between the gender-critical group For Women Scotland and the Scottish government. The justices determined that the terms “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 exclusively refer to biological women, a ruling that has ignited significant controversy. While proponents of the decision hailed it as a victory for women’s rights, LGBTQ+ organizations and human rights advocates expressed concerns about its potential to marginalize transgender individuals in society.

Since the ruling, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has issued draft guidance that would exclude transgender people from single-sex spaces aligned with their gender identity. Leaked documents suggest that the final version of these guidelines may follow a similar trajectory. Several organizations, including the Football Association and the England and Wales Cricket Board, have already implemented policies that restrict transgender participation.

McCloud, who is receiving support from the Trans Legal Clinic and W-Legal, filed her application under Articles 8 and 14 of the ECHR, which safeguard the rights to respect for personal identity and protection against discrimination. She articulated her concerns, stating, “No representation or evidence had been included from us in the 8,500 group [the estimated UK population of individuals with Gender Recognition Certificates diagnosed as transsexual]. I was refused. The court gave no reasoning.”

The implications of the ruling are profound, as McCloud noted, “The court reversed my and 8,500 other people’s sex for the whole of equality law. We are now two sexes at once.” She highlighted the alarming reality faced by transgender individuals, including being compelled to use facilities incongruent with their identity.

A spokesperson for the Trans Legal Clinic emphasized the importance of including transgender voices in these discussions, stating, “There must be no more conversations about us, without us.” They underscored that the legal action embodies the principles of Article 6, which guarantees the right to a fair and impartial hearing.

To support the legal challenge, the Trans Legal Clinic has launched a community crowdfunding campaign to assist with costs associated with the proceedings, reflecting public interest in these critical issues.

In June, McCloud called upon international organizations, including Genocide Watch and the Lemkin Institute, to address what she described as systematic oppression of the transgender community in the UK. During a keynote speech at the Pride in London Human Rights Forum, she remarked on the numerous challenges faced by transgender individuals, including violence, social exclusion, and discriminatory policing practices.

As McCloud pursues her case, For Women Scotland has announced intentions to challenge the Scottish government over policies perceived as inclusive of transgender individuals, further intensifying the ongoing debate surrounding transgender rights in the UK.