Ok, so go back and look at the post where I postulated about an openly "GC" volunteer.
This is not a scenario that has actually happened, but lets pretend for a moment it does. We're in no doubt that believing sex is immutable is a WORIADS belief. We are also in no doubt that being transgender is also a Protected Characteristic.
At this point, I'll remind you once again that I am obliged to discharge the function of the organisation in accordance with the stipulations in our contract, as provided to us by our commissioning partners. I can not ignore certain aspects of that contract even if I want to, I can't ignore them even if people outside the organisation disagree. I will also point out that Board Members are still liable legally, and as a sitting member of the Board, if I knowingly put the organisation in a position that leaves it open to prosecution, or the org collapses, the service is rendered inoperable, etc etc, I could, in theory, go to prison.
So we are in a scenario whereby there is supposed to be no hierarchy of protected characteristics, but there simply has to be for a number of reasons. I can not, if I have any doubts whatsoever, permit a volunteer to work in the organisation if I suspect it might lead to the harm, intentional or otherwise, of a service user. I know with certainty that some of my service users carry either one or multiple protected characteristics, what I do not know with absolute certainty is that a volunteer who holds beliefs that could potentially cause issues for certain service users will be capable of remaining objective and not disclosing that they hold those beliefs.
Am I going to take that risk? No, absolutely not, and I couldn't care less whether or not that is a material breach of EA2010, because my duty of care is to the service user, the organisation, and, considering that I could end up in prison for my poor judgement, myself. I do not have anything approaching that duty of care for a potential volunteer, because there is no legal compulsion whatsoever upon me to accept any and every volunteer who shows up. I will take the risk that I am in breach of the EA2010 where and when I believe it is absolutely necessary in order to pre-empt any possibility of a further, more damaging breach. This is exactly what my commissioning partners expect me to do, it's exactly what I'm supposed to do in order to follow best practice as laid out by the body responsible for national oversight.
In all likelihood, what would happen in reality is the potential volunteer would be subjected to further scrutiny and interview, and only if every member of senior management is satisfied there is no risk whatsoever, would they be approved to then proceed to work with the org. If I, or any of the other senior members have the slightest doubt, they will be refused, because I am not willing to run the risk of potentially harming a service user, bringing the org into disrepute, causing a legal shitstorm, losing our contract and losing the service for everyone, and potentially ending up facing charges myself. I'm quite happy to accept the risk that a potential volunteer takes the hump, but what I am totally unprepared to do is risk the entire continued operation of the organisation because I gave someone the benefit of the doubt when I had concerns.
"Insufficient Safeguards" is a common complaint about gender ideology. Surely then it's perfectly understandable why my organisation exercises absolute caution, even though the people I am eager to safeguard can be the very ones who are often accused of undermining safeguarding themselves. They still have rights, and a reasonable expectation that an organisation charged with a duty of care will not knowingly expose them to someone sanctioned by that organisation that they could find deeply objectionable. Is this not the very point made about potentially exposing vulnerable, traumatised women to male-bodied staff in support settings? That the organisation has a duty of care to prevent that?
I will also highlight that this is a specific scenario whereby a potential volunteer has been vocal in expressing their GC views. Firstly, if they simply kept those views to themselves we'd be none the wiser and have no reason to be concerned, but secondly, there is no reason whatsoever for them to express those views in the first place, because it's not something we actively enquire about, and it's not something that is discussed as a specific topic even though EA2010 is covered in training. The very fact a volunteer, unprompted, would feel the need to express their GC beliefs is what would give cause for concern.
So you can pretend all you like there is no hierarchy, but that's not how things work in practice, and it would not be workable in practice without disregarding safeguarding concerns. Again though, this is an entirely hypothetical scenario. If there is no hierarchy, and there should never be a "clash" where one party's rights are prioritised, then how does that work when when it's a traumatised woman and a trans member of staff? Both have protected characteristics, yet an organisation is apparently supposed to prioritise one over the other. There are hierarchies, because safeguarding is a thing.