For those who were on Good Law Project

[Tandora]

Please see the highlighted paragraph at the very start of the judgement. The judgement was about how to interpret certain words in the context of the EA 2010. They were not making judgements about what biological sex means, what gender means or how policy should be organised. That is not the role of courts. They are not scientists and they are not government. The role of the SC was to interpret the meaning of the words in the specific statute as it was written. Thats all. The end.

Isn't the fundamental problem with this that there are plenty of transwomen who have not had any feminisation treatments of any kind and who do not have a GRC (and in any case it is specifically forbidden to ask if someone has a GRC) so there would definitely be some transwomen who would not meet the conditions you describe, and it would be abhorrent to have a gatekeeping that listed thresholds/targets that a transwoman must meet to divide them into "acceptable" and "unacceptable" - so doesn't it therefore follow that there needs to be all "all or none" approach - either if the most stealth/passing tw is allowed in then the most masculine-looking must be too, or you have to have some kind of threshold/boundary and how do you decide where to draw that line?

Single sex clubs are lawful. Both men only, and women only.

Where ever is it written that it’s forbidden to ask id someone has a GRC?

the all-or-nothing approach is the only one permitted by statute. It’s not a value judgment based on workability or fairness, it just is what it is.

The European Convention of Human Rights Article 8 the Right to Privacy.

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/human-rights/human-rights-act/article-8-respect-your-private-and-family-life

So a man who has a certificate to say he is a woman is afforded the right to never disclose that he is a man, but a woman who wants single sex care, doesn't have the right to know that the woman she is sent is a man.

I doing see any legal interpretation of Article 8 that means you can’t ask if someone has a GRC. My understanding of the interpretation of Article 8 is that you can’t disadvantage someone for refusing to say if they have a GRC, but you can still ask.

If you understand the Equality Act 2010 then you realise the difference between inclusion, exclusion & what constitute single sex services so then it's not a mess at all.
The Supreme Court confirmed that the protected characteristic of sex has to be biological sex as the only way for the Act to work correctly. With this simple fact & an understanding of how EA2010 works every scenario can be easily worked through.

"You can legally keep people OUT of single-sex group on the basis of their gender reassignment. What you can’t do is legally include extra people IN on the basis of their gender reassignment."

Very helpful summary, thank you!