Britain’s first transgender judge sparked fury for plotting a legal bid to overturn a landmark ruling on biological sex. Retired judge Victoria McCloud is poised to apply to the European Court of Human Rights to bring action for infringement of her rights.

The move comes a fortnight after the Supreme Court delivered an unequivocal ruling that a woman’s gender is defined at birth. But despite the historic judgement, campaigners said the fight for safety and protection continues. Fiona McAnena, of human rights charity Sex Matters, said: "Men who identify as women never had the right to use female-only spaces and services, even if they thought they did. Trans activist groups encouraged a misunderstanding of the law so that many organisations adopted policies that centred the wishes of those men, at the expense of women. The law has not been changed, merely clearly stated."

The Supreme Court ruled the terms "woman" and "sex" in the Equality Act referred only to a biological woman and to biological sex, with subsequent guidance from the equality watchdog amounting to a blanket ban on trans people using toilets and other services of the gender they identify as.

Dr McCloud, 55, claims the judgement violated her human rights leaving her "contained and segregated" and claimed the court failed to consider human rights arguments that would have been put by trans people with the judgement leaving her in the legal limbo of being "two sexes at once".

The application - a claim against the UK - hinges on whether rights protected under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantee the right to a fair trial in both criminal and civil matters, were infringed.

Dr McCloud, who stood down from the High Court last year, said: "The basis is 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 ECHR will assess the admissibility of any application before deciding whether the claim can progress and, if it does, examine the substance of the complaint.

It will then issue a judgment, potentially ordering the UK to pay compensation or take other measures to remedy a violation. Proceedings are conducted in writing and are free.

The groundbreaking Supreme Court ruling on April 15 marked the climax of a long-running legal battle which is set to have major implications for how sex-based rights apply across Scotland, England and Wales.

Judges unanimously sided with campaign group For Women Scotland, which brought a case against the Scottish government arguing sex-based protections should only apply to people that are born female.

Delivering the verdict Lord Patrick Hodge said the ruling should not be seen as a triumph of one side over the other, stressing the law provides protection against discrimination to transgender people.

Gender critical campaigners hailed it as a victory for biological women with author and activist JK Rowling saying: "If some trans-identified people in the UK are currently experiencing rage and disappointment because the Supreme Court clarified that they don't have rights they believed they had, the responsibility lies firmly with activist groups and sections of the media who've persistently argued, falsely, that gender transition turned a person into the opposite sex for all practical purposes in the eyes of the law."

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said the judgement - which means transgender women with a gender recognition certificate can be excluded from single-sex spaces if “proportionate” - provided "much-needed clarity" but it sparked an ugly backlash as activists and supporters took to the streets in protest with statues defaced in acts the Met Police described as "senseless and unacceptable".

The ruling by the Supreme Court, the UK’s final court of appeal, and subsequent guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission which enforces the Equality Act, sent shockwaves through the UK’s transgender community.

It has caused chaos and confusion in the NHS with some medics arguing a binary divide between sex and gender has no basis in science or medicine while being “actively harmful to transgender and gender-diverse people”.

The union branch of the BMA representing resident doctors – made up of around 50,000 medics previously known as junior doctors - has passed a motion condemning the "scientifically illiterate" judgement that will cause "real-world harm" to trans, non-binary and intersex communities.

Dr Latifa Patel, chair of the representative body and equality lead at the British Medical Association, said: "The Supreme Court’s ruling made clear the law will continue to give protection against discrimination to trans and non-binary people, and we are committed to making sure they have access to the timely, safe and high-quality care they need.

"It’s absolutely vital any changes to current NHS and EHRC guidance and policies consider this and include the voices of trans staff and trans patients. We hope to be able to engage closely with the NHS to ensure our health service continues to provide safe and accessible care for all."

Oxford University educated Dr McCloud came out as trans in her twenties and is one of about 8,000 people to have legally changed the sex on their birth certificate.

In 2010 she was appointed a Master of the Senior Courts, Queen's Bench Division, becoming the first trans person and second woman to hold the position. She is now a litigation strategist living in the Republic of Ireland.

She said the court had not considered how the outcome would impact the lives of trans people, adding: "Trans people were wholly excluded from this court case. I applied to be heard. Two of us did. We were refused.

"[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."

The Cabinet Office said it would be inappropriate to comment on speculative or future court proceedings, but a UK Government spokesperson said: “We have always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex.

“This ruling brings clarity and confidence, for women and service providers such as hospitals, refuges, and sports clubs.

“Single-sex spaces are protected in law and will always be protected by this government.”