By locking out trans people, ignoring its Human Rights Act obligations, ignoring what Parliament was told the GRA was for, relying on a biased academic researcher, its ascientific 'biology' and hubristic attitude to lesbians, the Supreme Court caused incalculable harm to trust in the rule of law. - ThreadSky

goodlawproject.org • 4 days ago

By locking out trans people, ignoring its Human Rights Act obligations, ignoring what Parliament was told the GRA was for, relying on a biased academic researcher, its ascientific 'biology' and hubristic attitude to lesbians, the Supreme Court caused incalculable harm to trust in the rule of law.

Reposted from Jolyon Maugham KC

Even its former judges are speaking out about how unsatisfactory the Supreme Court judgment is: "There are plenty of things to quarrel with" about the judgment. www.theguardian.com/law/2025/may...

Comments

goodlawproject.org•4 days ago

Those who have worked closely with Justice Hodge and Justice Simler tell me they recognise their hallmarks in the Supreme Court decision. Legally judges can't resile from their judgment but, whoever wrote it, they ought to apologise for a judgment they must by now have grave doubts about.

goodlawproject.org•4 days ago

Lady Hale is plainly right: multiply flawed (and I would add extremely damaging) though the judgment is, its negative impact has been hugely (and unforgivably) amplified by the EHRC and Labour Ministers.

spetsdad.bsky.social•4 days ago

So, just like Cass? I'm seeing a pattern here...

jaksays.bsky.social•4 days ago

The doctors she spoke to were right, and yet she still falls at the hurdle with "the proper answer is somewhere in the middle"

It absolutely isn't

Rights are not negotiable, nor is decency, and frankly nor are biological facts

goodlawproject.org•4 days ago

I read her to be talking, there, not about biology but about how you interpret the multiply flawed Supreme Court decision.

jaksays.bsky.social•4 days ago

I read it the other way

But, surely that is equivalent?

What middle position is there on such a black and white decision?

kazhawa.bsky.social•4 days ago

Is this the same Baroness Hale the SC ignored in Chief Constable of West Yorkshire v A (binding according to Crash Wigley)? When Baroness Hale says she does not want to criticise the court it’s hard not to read that as anything other than a criticism - she couldn’t (didn’t) concur with it either.

sylvie-62.bsky.social•4 days ago

It confuses me that such a bad decision from such an unbalanced process was then agreed to unanimously by the multiple judges involved. None of them looked at this and thought, “Wait a minute…”

fortunafae.bsky.social•4 days ago

The lead judge wrote a report for the church saying gay and lesbian people should just be straight

they know the ruling is full of holes, they don't care

sylvie-62.bsky.social•4 days ago

Yes, I know about Hodge and the “balance” he brought to this (Arf!). My real disappointment is that there was not a single dissenting voice for either outcome (“Does this make sense?”) or process (“What about the human rights bit of our duty?”). Just infallible, unchallengeable bigotry all the way.

transbritannia.bsky.social•4 days ago

Do you remember this disgraceful headline from the Daily Heil?

Would you want to be the judge to face this? 🤔

pogglerebecca.bsky.social•4 days ago

I guess if you let multiple hate groups have exclusive access to shit in your brain for months on end, then presumably you're going to think shit like this is a good idea.

2phsthen.bsky.social•4 days ago

I hope they will speak out and help correct their horrible ruling.
The best to Brits!

aidap.bsky.social•4 days ago

I think that you give those crustaceans too much credit by giving them the ability to reflect and think. They did their hit job, made life miserable for thousands of people and will keep on being smug fuckwits going forward.

Nope, I got no respect left for them, they can rot.

goodlawproject.org•4 days ago

Well, I was quite close friends with one of those judges and I trusted them on equalities, an area where they were professionally strong and, I believed, thoughtful and progressive. I don't know whether they were got at by transphobes or made a series of serious errors. But both are possible.

aidap.bsky.social•4 days ago

This is likely where we differ as I am just... Done giving people who directly harm trans people benefit of the doubt. Mind I have no issue with someone being less cynical, but I spent last 2 years glossing over "missteps" as they "clearly mean well", just for things then to get worse.

goodlawproject.org•4 days ago

I hear you, Aida. And I think your attitude is usually right.

aidap.bsky.social•4 days ago

It's especially hard to think that segregation was not the point where we part of the judgement they provided that "women's only book club" should be allowed to prohibit trans women from it. They knew what they were doing, at this doesn't meet any test, it's just cruelty and annihilation

johnw60.bsky.social•4 days ago

The EHRC guidance at 2.2.8 suggests providers can ask for GRC‘s. This is contradicted by para 202 of the judgment below that says they can’t.

claireham.bsky.social•4 days ago

It’s impossible to have trust in an institution that has destroyed the lives of so many via its decision to overturn a long established status-quo that almost nobody thought was anything other than the will of parliament. And all done without those impacted even given the opportunity to speak.

goodlawproject.org•4 days ago

I agree. I no longer trust it - the massive flaws (I would go further and say misconduct) have destroyed my ability to do so.

jacques-hughes.bsky.social•4 days ago

So if our highest court can’t be trusted, that makes your lawfare project pointless doesn’t it? Will you be disbanding and returning donations?

nikavia.bsky.social•4 days ago

They blew off their legal duties under HRA 9(3) in order to strip rights away from a vulnerable minority. If they had the level of shame required for an apology, it would be accompanied by their resignation. No trans person can trust the supreme court to rule fairly as long as they remain in office.

vala.bsky.social•4 days ago

It's weird how the ruling that was so lauded for bringing clarity was apparently *immediately* misunderstood. Definitely not what I'd expect from actual clarification. 🤔

2phsthen.bsky.social•4 days ago

Horrible! If like the States a few radical "Christians" riled up more & more bigots.

2phsthen.bsky.social•4 days ago

My trans-nephew suffered until he transitioned in his 30's. He's an incredible person - loving, filled with laughter, a fantastic nurse. He gave presentations at other hospitals on the care of trans and other patients. Just passed his Nurse Practitioner boards.

kuyvonbraun.bsky.social•4 days ago

Wonderful 💜

I work for the NHS too & my Trust js tying itself in knots over the SC ruling. Fundamentally healthcare workers are compassionate ppl & nobody wants to discriminate to appease a handful of bigots (who are miserable anyway)

strangenoises.org•4 days ago

the thing to always remember is they can't be appeased. it's like the Danegeld. Give them something and they'll be forever coming back for more.

kuyvonbraun.bsky.social•4 days ago

Word.

gareth.entertainium.co•4 days ago

I'm still amazed by the complete abandonment of parliamentary sovereignity by the government. The Supreme Court in the UK is not like that in in the US; it only interpets the law, but cannot make the law. This was massive judicial overreach which any reasonable government would legislate to remove.

johnw60.bsky.social•4 days ago

Vera Baird 2009 on draft Equality Bill

johnw60.bsky.social•4 days ago

The intentions of Parliament in both 2004 and 2010 were expressed in Hansard. Vera Baird as Solicitor General told Euan Harris in 2009 in the Joint Committee on Human Rights that the new Equality Act would use the GRA definition of sex.

johnw60.bsky.social•4 days ago

matheasagdahl.bsky.social•4 days ago

You forgot "ignoring the existence of intersex people" from your list. So much to pick from.

johnw60.bsky.social•4 days ago

In terms of what Parliament was told this applies not just to what it was told about the GRA but what it was told about the Equality Act. See Vera Baird as Solicitor General on the Equality bill in 2009 responding to Dr Harries in Joint Committee on Human Rights on what Sex Definition would be

jo-jo64.bsky.social•4 days ago

Go Jo.

woke66.bsky.social•4 days ago

It’s hard not to feel that the British state has declared war on the trans community and this judgment is being politicised and being used just like the Cass Review and all the other so called “reviews” as yet another means to marginalise and beat the trans community.

katek0.bsky.social•4 days ago

This whole ruling is based on a dogmatic assertation sex = biological sex, which they never define. It would be laughable if not so sad for its consequences.

goodlawproject.org•4 days ago

They say it means "natal sex" - which is stupid in a different way.

katek0.bsky.social•4 days ago

To clarify at para 6"A person who is a biological man, ie
who was at birth of the male sex"

katek0.bsky.social•4 days ago

I'm referring to para 171"Although the word “biological” does not appear in this definition, the ordinary meaning of those plain and unambiguous words corresponds with the biological characteristics that make an individual a man or a woman. These are assumed to be self-explanatory..."

drchrispook.bsky.social•4 days ago

Sex is biological. It is based on the binary forms of gametes we produce. Women are defined as female because, at sexual maturity, they produce large, immobile gametes. Men are male because they produce small, mobile gametes.

drchrispook.bsky.social•4 days ago

Pretending that this hasn't been known since the dawn of time is why you are losing.

ff-preobrazhensky.bsky.social•4 days ago

On one hand they're desperate to stop people taking gender related hormone suppressants, on the other, they're desperate to make it mandatory 🙄🙅‍♂️🤦‍♂️
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/may/22/experts-would-refuse-to-take-part-in-mandatory-castration-for-sex-offenders

melarune.bsky.social•4 days ago

In my various letters to my MP etc I was very sure to draw attention to how obvious cockups like this massively undermine the SCs credibility and pointed out how risky it is for them if people don't have faith in the integrity of the judiciary. Hopefully some of it filtered through

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply