For any given context, are they automatically assumed, must they be evoked and can they be ignored?
The wording reads, to me, as offering legal protection for spaces who wish to exclude TIMs (providing proportional etc).
So take a rape crisis centre with a clear mission statement that excludes males and TIMs. They can claim protection from legal action on grounds of discrimination under the exemptions listed in the Equality Act.
Now take a rape crisis centre whose mission statement includes TIMs. They are not claiming exemption under the Equalities Act. Can users force them to do so? I don’t see the legal mechanism for it. Of course, users (and allies) can campaign and debate, but how does one force a rape crisis centre to avail themselves of exemption protection if they don’t want it?
Along similar lines re: formal phrasing, I’m seeing a lot of Twitter claims that ‘self ID is illegal’, when what is meant is ‘self ID is not a legally-supported mechanism to acquire sex-based rights’. The strict reading of the former makes for a very different tone.
I’m intrigued by what I see as a subtle nuance in wording, but I’m no legal bod. Was promoted to this post by a suggestion on another thread about having ‘a line’ that we can legitimately (and by that, I mean worded carefully and truly reflecting the law) repeat when confronted by clashes. Just pondering....