Keir Starmer Government urged to clarify definition of sex by the Tories

How sweet that the Tories think that Labour will pick up the agenda they failed to implement themselves during 14 years. They must think Starmer fell out of a tree.

Don't you just get the feeling that nobody in govt particularly wants 'clarification'? That there's no enthusiasm whatsoever to press for change (to use an unfortunate term 😛) to either the GRA or the Equality Act.

This is already covered in EQA2010:

^EqA Sch3 Part7 Para28

Gender reassignment

28(1)A person does not contravene section 29, so far as relating to gender reassignment discrimination, only because of anything done in relation to a matter within sub-paragraph (2) if the conduct in question is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

(2)The matters are—

(a)the provision of separate services for persons of each sex;

(b)the provision of separate services differently for persons of each sex;

(c)the provision of a service only to persons of one sex.^

People with a GRC have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment and can be excluded from a single sex space or service where that exclusion is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. Among the list of legitimate aims are safety, dignity and privacy. So what could be a proportionate means?

Provision of third spaces would be proportionate.

Signposting to an equivalent service that will provide the service would be proportionate.

Exclusion would be proportionate if the building could not be modified to provide third spaces or the cost would be prohibitive.

There are probably other proportionate means.

The problem is that service providers cannot be forced to provide single sex spaces and services so the default is mixed sex and suck it up if you are unhappy.

Not really if they simply clarify that sex in the equality act does not include sex modified by a grc things would be better. Also if the government would mount a large publicity campaign telling all businesses and public bodies that men who don't have a grc are not entitled to access to women's spaces and making them use the males is not discrimination.
No need to change anything else

And that "can provide single-sex services" is very different from "must provide single-sex services".

I don't see how you can get away from the "proportionate" bit. Otherwise you're saying that women can have single sex spaces just because they want to. But then you run into the problem that the EA2010 protects everyone, not specific groups. So that means that men can have single sex spaces just because they want to as well. Then you're back to blokes clubs settling matters behind closed doors.

The problem with this is they could make It a lot worse.