UK Supreme Court trans ruling based on ‘significant errors’, legal expert argues
A recently-published analysis of the FWS v Scottish Ministers ruling argued that Supreme Court justices were “unduly optimistic” in assuming that its judgement wouldn’t cause problems for trans people.
The article by Dr. Claire Bradley critically examines the UK Supreme Court’s decision in For Women Scotland (FWS) v Scottish Ministers, arguing it was wrongly decided due to a flawed legal foundation. The case originated from a challenge to statutory guidance issued under the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018, which aimed to improve female representation but included transgender women in its definition of “woman.” FWS contended this redefinition exceeded the Scottish Government’s authority.
Bradley argues the Supreme Court’s reliance on the repealed 1975 Sex Discrimination Act was inappropriate, especially given the Equality Act 2010 and its 2008 amendments, which were influenced by EU law. She highlights that EU law remained applicable during the UK’s transition period in 2020, and the EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement required courts to interpret domestic law in line with EU principles.
Provincetown Carnival parade 2025 led by veterans suing over transgender military ban
Loudoun County Public Schools Defies Trump, Votes Not To Ban Trans Kids From Bathrooms
Minnesota Teen Files Gender Discrimination Charge Against Buffalo Wild Wings
Volleyball player sues California university that revoked her scholarship for being trans
Fiancée of murdered transgender woman speaks about her loved one’s life
Meet trans vet, husband, and dad, Clayton McCallister
Vikings under fire over male cheerleaders.
Male cheerleaders are mixed up with trans men now? This was always about policing gender stereotypes.
The Transphobic Conspiracy Theory on TikTok
