The date on that appears to be 7th Feb?
Yes it does, because it is. The process did not begin in April 2025 - that was the culmination. Would you like to understand not just the fall out of the decision on the lives of trans people, which I will assume is obvious, but how the more far-reaching effects of the UKSC decision on parliamentary sovereignty, and therefore democracy? I'll assume you would, and post here the concerns. You remain, of course, free to ignore or hold your own opinions.
Judicial Interpretation or Constitutional Misadventure? A Rebuttal to the Supreme Court’s Framing of Parliamentary Intent
In its 2025 judgment redefining “sex” under the Equality Act as “biological sex,” the UK Supreme Court claimed to honour Parliament’s intent. It opened its reasoning by affirming that its role was to interpret what lawmakers meant — not what judges preferred. Yet the conclusion reached stands in marked contradiction to the public record of Parliament’s own declarations, committee exchanges, and drafting instructions.
This isn’t fidelity. It’s constitutional sleight of hand.
What Parliament Actually Said During the final drafting committee meeting of the Equality Act, the then Solicitor General, Vera Baird, stated unequivocally: - “She is a woman now for all purposes, not a transgender person, a woman.” “That is the point of the certificate... to make it clear beyond doubt and that is where all her rights come from.”
This exchange — recorded in Q75–Q77 and later formalised in a paper circulated to both Houses — confirms that a trans woman with a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) is to be treated as a woman
for all purposes. This was not a policy flourish. It was a legal instruction, embedded in the drafting brief and carried forward into the Equality Act’s architecture.
The full transcript is a matter of public record and can be read here:
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200809/jtselect/jtrights/169/9062405.htm
What the Supreme Court Chose Instead In its 88-page ruling, the Court acknowledged its duty to examine Parliament’s intention — then pivoted toward academic theory and scholarly articles on legislative drafting. It elevated external commentary above the actual words spoken in committee, and treated the Equality Act as if it were a philosophical text rather than a statute born of ministerial instruction.
This method doesn’t clarify the law. It recasts it.
Why This Undermines Sovereignty Parliament is sovereign not because judges agree with its politics, but because its instruction stands above reinterpretation. The Supreme Court’s ruling now rests on an inversion: it claims fidelity while contradicting the legislative record. It takes a phrase — “sex” — and redefines it despite Parliament’s own use of the term in the context of the GRC.
The result is that trans women with legal recognition — once treated as women “for all purposes” — are now excluded under a narrower judicial definition. That’s not clarification. That’s overreach.
The Public Record Is Clear The Equality Act was drafted to reflect existing law — not personal ideology.
Melanie Field, who led that drafting, implemented the government’s brief with professional fidelity. Her role was to embed the democratic will, not to bend it. The recent judgment’s departure from this record not only contradicts legislative instruction but risks reshaping statutory protections with judicial discretion.
EHRC’s Guidance and Retraction Following the Supreme Court’s ruling, the EHRC issued interim guidance interpreting the judgment in stark terms: trans women (even with a GRC) were to be treated as biological men for the purposes of single-sex spaces. After the Good Law Project initiated a judicial review, the EHRC quietly revised its position — including a formal abandonment of its claim that employers must provide single-sex toilets. The retraction occurred with no public explanation, leaving many institutions in uncertainty and risking further harm.
Legal Challenge by the Good Law Project Permission has now been granted for a half-day hearing in the High Court later this month, where the Good Law Project will challenge the legality of both the EHRC’s guidance and the procedural treatment of trans individuals in the broader legal context. Their case asserts a breach of obligations under the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights.
Dr Victoria McCloud’s ECtHR Action - Dr McCloud, the UK’s first openly trans High Court judge, is seeking effective remedy through the European Court of Human Rights. Her claim centres on Article 6 — the right to a fair hearing — and highlights the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear evidence or testimony from trans individuals or organisations. She describes the outcome as leaving her “two sexes at once,” a legal contradiction that corrodes both dignity and clarity. Her challenge is not merely personal — it’s constitutional.
Conclusion The Supreme Court’s ruling may reflect an interpretation — but it does not reflect Parliament’s intent. To claim otherwise is to replace legislative sovereignty with judicial ideology. If constitutional interpretation is to remain faithful, it must begin and end with the record. On this matter, Parliament spoke clearly. And the archive still holds the truth.
