UK’s First Trans Judge to Fight ‘Woman Is Biological’ Ruling in Human Rights Court

Britain’s first transgender judge, Victoria McCloud, is set to drag the UK government before the European Court of Human Rights over a Supreme Court ruling that defines “woman” and “sex” as biological, a decision that exposed the chaos unleashed by activist judges greenlighting agendas that threaten to turn society into a modern-day Sodom and Gomorrah.

Earlier this month, on April 16, the UK Supreme Court unanimously ruled that under the 2010 Equality Act, “woman” and “sex” refer strictly to biological women and biological sex, not a Gender Recognition Certificate, which allows a transgender person to have their acquired gender officially recognized by the government.

McCloud, who resigned last year after a series of controversial statements, claims the high court's ruling violates her human rights and leaves her “contained and segregated.”

A former High Court Master, McCloud, who transitioned in the 1990s, contends her GRC should legally define her as a woman, and the court's ruling presents legal "nonsense" that defines her as being "two sexes at once."

The trannie judge, now a litigation strategist, plans to challenge the UK under Article 6 of the European Court of Human Rights, which guarantees a fair trial, alleging the court excluded trans voices.

"Trans people were wholly excluded from this court case. I applied to be heard. Two of us did. We were refused," McCloud told the BBC. "[The court] heard no material going to the question of the proportionality and the impact on trans people. It didn’t hear evidence from us. The Supreme Court failed in my view, adequately, to think about human rights points."

She added to The Guardian, "The basis is that 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. Those are two basic premises of normal justice."

The Supreme Court, which heard trans-related arguments from Amnesty International, rejected McCloud’s request to intervene in the case brought by For Women Scotland against the Scottish government.

Fiona McAnena, director of campaigns at Sex Matters, said, “Ms McCloud’s attempt to intervene was always misguided because the Supreme Court rarely allows individuals to intervene. The Scottish Government, the respondent in the Supreme Court case, has already said it accepts the ruling. The case is over and there is no obvious route for [McCloud] to take the UK government to the ECHR."

McCloud argues the ruling creates confusion.

“Just as the prime minister didn’t know what a woman was, actually the Supreme Court don’t know because they haven’t defined biological sex. The answer [in my view] is that a woman in law is someone with the letter F on her birth certificate.” He told the BBC.

“[This judgement] has left me two sexes at once, which is a nonsense and ironic, because the Supreme Court said that sex was binary," McCloud continued. "I am a woman for all purposes in law, but [now under this judgement] I’m a man for the Equality Act 2010. So I have to probably guess on any given occasion which sex I am.”

The Equality and Human Rights Commission issued guidance Monday stating, “trans women (biological men) should not be permitted to use the women’s facilities” in workplaces or public spaces.

McCloud called the ruling and guidance "chaos," a view shared by Green Party co-leader Carla Denyer, who questioned the government’s response to "distress within the trans community and further confusion for employers."

In her 2024 resignation letter, McCloud compared herself to Rosa Parks.

"Rosa Parks’s choice of seat was political because of the colour of her skin. More prosaically, for me, I am now political every time I choose where to pee," the trans judge wrote. "Less prosaically, the judiciary, by continuing to let me be a judge, is now at risk of being political."

McLeod's ECHR application, due by October 16, 2025, must demonstrate “significant disadvantage” from the ruling.

A victory could bolster Tory calls to exit the ECHR, a recurring flashpoint.

On Monday, the British Medical Association’s resident doctors condemned the Supreme Court's ruling, branding it as "scientifically illiterate."

"This meeting condemns the Supreme Court ruling defining the term ''woman,'" the BMA wrote in a motion. "We recognize as doctors that sex and gender are complex and multifaceted aspects of the human condition and attempting to impose a rigid binary has no basis in science or medicine while being actively harmful to transgender and gender-diverse people."

The motion requires full member approval to become policy.

A BMA spokesman said, “The BMA respects trans patients’ dignity, autonomy and human rights and continues to believe that trans doctors, NHS workers and patients deserve dignity, safety, and equitable access to healthcare and healthcare facilities.”

Across the Atlantic, similar battles are brewing in the United States, where courts are grappling with transgender rights cases that echo the UK’s divide.

From bathroom access to sports participation, activist judges are increasingly entertaining arguments that push a globalist agenda of body dysphoria, eroding biological realities.