We believe there are far reaching problems with the practical application of the Equality Act in relation to this definition - EHRC

Exactly

Because this comes up on so many threads, here is the section of the Lady Haldane ruling I was referring to:

So far as the perceived difficulties that would arise in the setting up and administration of single sex spaces are concerned, appropriate protections were provided in paragraph 28 of schedule 3 to the 2010 Act. This provides that a person does not contravene section 29 (which states, read short, that service providers must not discriminate against a person requiring that service) if the conduct in question is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. (P16)

Thus through the lens of paragraph 28 it was perfectly possible to operate the provisions of the 2010 Act relating to single sex services, although a proportionality assessment might, depending on the circumstances, be required. In summary, the examples proffered by the petitioner did not give rise to the conclusion that “sex” in the 2010 Act could only and always mean biological sex or sex recognised at birth, rather the 2004 Act and the 2010 Act worked in harmony paying respect to the proposition that, as a matter of law, a person who obtains an acquired gender under the 2004 Act has an acquired sex for all purpose and therefore a person’s sex can, as a matter of law, be changed. Appropriate exceptions to that proposition were recognised in the legislation itself. P17)

Note in second paragraph "proportionality" = women cant just say they want to only be with other biological women.

And then also:

a person who obtains an acquired gender under the 2004 Act has an acquired sex for all purpose and therefore a person’s sex can, as a matter of law, be changed.

To repeat, the phrase is from Lady Haldane's summing up.

ie one judges assessment, which is being challenged.

But I assumed it is in fact because of the SSE. If it wasn't meant to be that with a GRC you changed sex, then you wouldn't need the SSE.

The existence of the SSE illustrates that they did intend a GRC changed your sex for all purposes.

And even in their trans extremism, they must of thought, oh dear, we better give the luddite ladies something to keep them quiet.

I think, if memory serves me right, that is a quote from Lady Haldane ruling. And its that, isn't it, that this judicial review is about.

But if I am right in quoting her, and others interpret the law as written, isn't that a further indication that it needs to be clarified.

I think they are saying that as written the law says that someone with a GRC is legally the other sex.

But they are saying that as written it has "practical" problems:

“We believe there are far reaching problems with the practical application of the Equality Act in relation to this definition.

And also undermines the rights of women and same sex attracted people:

“It creates significant inconsistencies, which impair the proper functioning of the Equality Act and jeopardise the rights and interests of women and same-sex attracted people. These difficulties include the challenges faced by those seeking to maintain single sex spaces, and in the rights of same-sex attracted persons to form associations. We think clarity is important to everybody affected by these issues properly understanding and exercising their rights.

If at least the court agrees it is badly worded, and its intent needs clarifying, that will be a step forward.

But not sure the Court can come down either side on the meaning of the word sex in relation to what the law intended.

But maybe they can.

Like a strict teacher saying, no you need to re-write and make it clear.

The problem with that, is with Labour being in power, who knows how they would "tidy it up". Although suspect we know how they will want the law to give rights to trans idendified people.

But I think we all know that this "kind" proposal was in fact intended as a Trojan Horse.

And that not just the act, but trans activism has made it a much wider issue.

And much more about undermining biological women as a protected characteristic.

And the problem is that should as a result of the court case, or anyone bothering to remember the "Government" still has to deal with 2 petitions about this, it will be a Labour Government making the ammedments.

If only Sunak hadn't called his snap election, maybe, just maybe, KB could have put forward something in the HoC that sorted this all out.

But as I said up thread, even if there is legal "clarification" in terms of society and how it behaves, we have so much ground to re claim.

And not much public support.

I haven’t read the EHRC submission.

As far as I can tell it is the paragraphs I have included in the OP.

ie they say it is clear that when written the intention was that those with a GRC legally became the other sex.

But the add what the problems are, eg single sex spaces, and that therefore it should be clarified.

Which I think put crudely is the basic intent of the JR.