Thanks Pencils for extracting the links.
I thought all 3 speakers were fairly good, and very clear about the importance of retaining sex based exemptions.
Interestingly KM QC is absolutely sure that the part of the GRA which says "becomes a women (or man) for all purposes " has to be read subject to the sex-based exemptions, ie sex based exemptions trump a GRC.
There has not been any case law to determine this, and other lawyers don't think it is that clear cut, but one good result of this process might be if that is made totally clear.
I think the problem with what the speakers were saying, is that it doesn't address the cases where the 'risk' analysis is not central. Not the rape crisis centres, but the beauty salons who don't wish to offer a male-body service. Not the prisons, but the shop changing rooms, the swimming sessions, the women-in-business networks, the women's support groups.
And what about this creeping social trend to abandon sex based exemptions and use gender based definitions instead? The speakers haven't picked up on that at all. eg Swim England, Girl Guides, etc.