Very rarely post here. Verbally terf slaying on X is in my blood. But the moment you post something that looks like a crisis, there are loads of people rushing to your side. We know you. We love you and will always be at your side. I expect you at MY funeral in many years to come. Love Steph xxx

In the 1970s, 80s and 90s, gay people experienced the same accusations that trans people suffer today. This shared history of struggle should not be forgotten.

ENDS.

Trans people, like gay people, have existed since time immemorial - often, people never realised they were there, but over the last ten years, trans people have 'become a problem' in a manufactured culture war.

This divergence not only compromises the uniform application of Supreme Court precedent across the UK but also creates a constitutional schism within the UK.

•  Constitutional Schism in Northern Ireland: Due to the Northern Ireland Protocol and the Windsor Framework, courts in Northern Ireland (NI) are compelled to ignore the FWS judgment where it conflicts with retained EU law regarding equality.

There human rights submission was dismissed in a single paragraph of the 268-paragraph judgment. This was a clear violation of ECHR Article 6 (right to fair trial), a fundamental principle of justice.

•   Exclusion of Transgender Voices: The Supreme Court restricted interventions (TransLucent Director Professor Stephen Whittle OBE and former Judge Victoria McCloud) in the FWS case, ignoring the transgender voice and allowing only Amnesty International to intervene.

suggests (concerningly) that the SC has been deploying new modes of reasoning to ensure that the law under scrutiny cannot be found in breach of human rights. Gearty explicitly highlighted the FWS v SGM judgment.

•   Quietly Editing the Human Rights Act out of existence: Expert Legal commentary, for example, by the late Conor Gearty (regarded as one of the world's most influential scholars on human rights)

Indeed, the Supreme Court Judges did not even attempt to address this matter, failing to evaluate Hansard and other relevant records on the formulation of the Gender Recognition Act, particularly the interpretation of "for all purposes".

•   Risks Breaching International Obligations: The judgment notably omits engagement with Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which requires legislation to be interpreted compatibly with the ECHR, placing the UK at significant risk of non-compliance.

•   Renders Legal Recognition Illusory: The ruling potentially nullifies the recognition conferred by the GRA 2004, forcing GRC holders into a "third sex" status for anti-discrimination purposes, particularly in employment, services, and public life.

It reinstates a legal status for trans people that was deemed "no longer sustainable" by the European Court of Human Rights in Christine Goodwin v UK (2002), violating the UK's positive obligations under Article 8 of the Convention.

This judgment:

•   Conflicts with the ECHR and the "Intermediate Zone" Doctrine:

Bad laws always fail; sometimes it takes years, but they fail. What happened in FWS v SGM was wrong, and the CoE representative was right to call out the potential human rights breaches.

But some object. Do those who complain not realise that many trans people want to support their brothers and sisters in life's struggles? Apparently not.