Thank you for linking that letter, I hadn't read it before.
It doesn't say what you are suggesting it says. The EHRC was asked it's opinions by the Government, in particular Kemi Badenoch on changing the meaning of sex, it was asked to give a balanced view on the rights of people who would be impacted by this change. Clearly trans women with a GRC would be impacted by a change. This doesn't mean the change should not happen for the benefit of those of us who wish to rely on the pc of Sex, particularly in regard to single sex spaces.
Some parts of the letter you have ignored for the purpose of this discussion -
The EHRC has looked at this issue over several successive Board meetings and has considered various routes forward, all of which have advantages and disadvantages for one group or another. There is no straightforward balance, but we have come to the view that if ‘sex’ is defined as biological sex for the purposes of EqA, this would bring greater legal clarity in eight areas.
These are as follows.1 • Pregnancy and maternity: As things stand, protections in the EqA for pregnant women and new mothers fail to cover trans men who are pregnant and whose legal sex is male. Defining ‘sex’ as biological sex would resolve this issue. • Freedom of association for lesbians and gay men: If sex means legal sex, then sexual orientation changes on acquiring a GRC: some trans women with a GRC become legally lesbian, and some trans men with a GRC become gay men. As things stand, a lesbian support group (for instance) may have to admit a trans woman with a GRC attracted to women without a GRC or to trans women who had obtained a GRC. On the biological definition it could restrict membership to biological women.
Freedom of association for women and men: As things stand, a women’s book club (for instance) may have to admit a trans woman who had obtained a GRC. On the biological definition it could restrict membership to biological women. • Positive action. Currently, trans women with a GRC could benefit from ‘women-only’ shortlists and other measures aimed at increasing female participation. Trans men with a GRC could not. A biological definition of sex would correct this perceived anomaly.
• Occupational requirements. Employers are sometimes permitted to restrict positions to women or to men. An employer can (for example) require that a warden in a women’s or girls’ hostel be female. At present, such a role would be open to a trans woman with a GRC, but not to a trans man with a GRC. A biological definition of sex would correct this perceived anomaly.
• Single sex and separate sex services. Service providers are sometimes permitted to offer services to the sexes separately or to one sex only. For instance, a hospital might run several women-only wards. At present, the starting point is that a trans woman with a GRC can access a ‘women-only’ service. The service provider would have to conduct a careful balancing exercise to justify excluding all trans women. A biological definition of sex would make it simpler to make a women’s-only ward a space for biological women. • Sport. At present, to exclude trans women with a GRC from women’s sports, the organiser must show that it was necessary to do so in the interests of fairness or safety. A biological definition of sex would mean that organisers could exclude trans women from women’s sport without this additional burden.
• Data collection. When data are broken down by legal not biological sex, the result may seriously distort or impoverish our understanding of social and medical phenomena. A biological definition of sex would require public bodies like universities to apply this category, without the complexity added by a legal definition of sex, to the analysis of data collected in fulfilling the Public Sector Equality Duty.
It is interesting that some trans people (the female ones) will also benefit from clarity over the legal definition of sex in respect of a number of those benefits to women.
The letter goes on to say
On balance, we believe that redefining ‘sex’ in EqA to mean biological sex would create rationalisations, simplifications, clarity and/or reductions in risk for maternity services, providers and users of other services, gay and lesbian associations, sports organisers and employers. It therefore merits further consideration.
It then goes on to say that the government should seek legal advice and 'consider if there are other means of achieving the same ends'.
So you have not made up the parts you have selected to support your world view but you have omitted balance which is something we frequently see on these threads.
As I said upthread changing laws are not easy. Governments do have to consider effected parties and whether they might fall foul of other laws. I do not agree that making changes to protect women for the PC of sex would fall foul of European Human Rights Laws. The only way you could conclude that is if you think that women should have less rights than men with gender identities.
This is rapidly changing area of law and policy, as more and more women are being harmed because we have effectively lost words to describe ourselves independently of males and protections under the Equality Act wrt single sex exemptions, I would imagine political appetite to protect women from harms will increase. We are also human and deserve rights too after all.