Britain’s first openly trans judge, Dr Victoria McCloud, takes UK government to court over Supreme Court ruling
– 1 min read
Dr Victoria McCloud, Britain’s first openly trans judge, has launched legal proceedings against the UK government in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), challenging a recent Supreme Court ruling that defines "woman" strictly in terms of biological sex under the Equality Act 2010.
The landmark Supreme Court decision, delivered in April, concluded that the terms "woman" and "sex" in the Equality Act refer exclusively to biological definitions. While gender-critical campaigners hailed the ruling as a victory for women's rights, critics, including Dr McCloud, argue it effectively excludes trans individuals from full participation in UK society.
Dr McCloud, 55, who stepped down from her judicial role last year, claims the Supreme Court denied her the opportunity to intervene in the case, despite her direct stake in its implications. Her legal team, led by Oscar Davies - the UK’s first openly non-binary barrister - and Olivia Campbell-Cavendish, the country’s first Black trans lawyer, has filed an appeal citing a breach of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights: the right to a fair and impartial hearing by an independent tribunal.
“This is the first case in history to be brought by a trans-led legal team,” said a spokesperson for the Trans Legal Clinic, which is supporting the case. “For the trans community, it embodies a simple truth: there must be no more conversations about us, without us.”
Dr McCloud has described the Supreme Court’s ruling as a “legal nonsense,” arguing that it leaves her in a state of being “two sexes at once” under UK law. She further criticised the court for failing to hear from trans voices, despite allowing interventions from gender-critical organisations such as Sex Matters and the LGB Alliance.
In a statement to The Independent, Dr McCloud said, “It literally changed my legal sex for discrimination purposes, overnight. I think it becomes embarrassing to law, to have a situation where essentially the people who are the most affected in human rights terms don’t actually have any voice at any stage.”
