Trans people are excluded from contributing to a legal case directly affecting them. 

On the 8th of October, the Good Law Project put out a statement on their social media stating that the Supreme Court has excluded Victoria McCloud and Stephen Whittle from intervening “in a case trying to strip them of rights they’ve held for 20 years”. They are also adding that instead “The court will hear from a parade of organisations who are hostile to the rights and dignity of trans people”. 

Whilst only Amnesty International UK will be able to argue against the anti-trans organisation’s case, trans voices are left noticeably out of a case that will affect their very own day-to-day lives. 

The case in question is from For Women Scotland, who, in their string of multiple court losses in lower courts, is looking to get a ruling in which Gender Recognition Certificates are labelled as not valid in recognising a trans person’s sex changing in law. Something which would prevent trans people from changing their sex on their birth certificate and in some documents like marriage certificates. 

The court case will be held in late November and finish on the 27th.

Whilst this case is being heard, Dr Victoria McCloud has urged trans people “To remain calm and to stay safe,” saying that “I have every confidence the law plainly stated will prevail; all else is politics”. 

Good Law project also stated that the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is contributing to the case. We have approached the EHRC for a comment on what contribution they will be bringing to the case. 

They have now stated the below: 

“We have been granted permission to intervene in the Supreme Court appeal of For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers. 

“The EHRC works to promote and uphold the Equality Act, and the court’s determination of this issue is of significant interest to us. As Britain’s expert and impartial equality regulator, we believe our intervention in the forthcoming appeal will assist the Supreme Court in assessing the legal and practical implications of the case”