I've read the full consultation document and all the appendixes.
It's very clearly written in plain English, which I like a lot, and has an extensive glossary to help anyone who need with the terminology. I imagine it was a challenge to find a compromise on acceptable language and I'm happy enough with it, though of course not everyone will be ok to find cis used. In this case it's a necessary clarifying descriptor and it's hard to see how it could have been written without ambiguity if cis were not used at times.
There are references throughout so you can see where info comes from.
There's a lot of clarification about what the GRA is like now, and what the EA sets out in relation to it.
It felt balanced in that it frequently acknowledges that there are concerns, and respondents are encouraged to give their views as fully as they can. It's made clear that they want to hear about potential problems in terms of the interaction between the GRA and the EA, and they definitely want to hear from single sex institutions or organisations.
It lays out the ground rules that everyone's response will be given equal consideration and weight.
There are questions that specifically address areas like women's sport, single sex spaces, the prison estate, spousal veto etc.
For the response document, I liked that almost every question asks for an open response in addition to the yes or no type part, and that there's an end section with a completely open any other comments option. So you could use that bit to protest about language use you object to, or to pin down a definition you thought wasn't clear enough.
Also you can save your response to go back to, so you can take your time to properly consider your answers.
It's a great opportunity to be heard, and definitely helped me think things through and frame a response.