It's an interesting read. But.
But given all this, the retention of the Gender Recognition Act and the granting of Gender Recognition Certificates, remain problematic.
As SpartacusAutisticusAHF said upthread:
As long as men can become 'legally female' sex as a protected characteristic does not protect women and girls.
And as AspieAndProud said upthread:
But then ‘the law says a transwoman who hasn't gone through the GRC process is a man.’
That implies a man who has gone through the GRC process is a woman, otherwise why mention the GRC process at all?
And the quote from the official account:
"a trans woman with a GRC would be treated as female."
And Qcng:
'A man/transwoman with a GRC should be treated as their preferred gender BUT exemptions apply so they can still be excluded.
Which we all knew anyway. BUT now the EHRC formally recognise this where before it was all a bit obscure.
And MsBeaujangles:
In terms of the GRC distinction, as a pp has stated, seeing as it is illegal to ask for a GRC, how on earth can appropriate access be monitored/checked upon.? Whilst I don't buy the argument that it is impossible to 'police' access (after all, people drive cars everyday without proving they have passed their test/have tax, insurance and an MOT) if people cannot be asked to prove their sex, any attempts to protect sex based rights are meaningless.
We're still dealing in interpretations - i.e. opinions - rather than any definite ruling that female single-sex spaces and roles will remain dedicated to and for women and girls - biological, born women and girls, and only women and girls; and no persons born with male biology allowed, because sex matters.
Once again, the devil is in the detail, and possible loopholes, such as these.