Oh for God's sake. She's so embarrassingly dishonest in her presentation of the actual issues at stake.
Nobody decent thinks trans people pose any threat over and above anyone else. They pose no LESS threat, either. We don't exclude men from women's spaces because all are a threat. We exclude because some are a threat, which is a statistical reality, as is the fact that most women are less physically strong than most men. We have separate spaces for safety, dignity and protection.
You can't change sex. Women have distinct and discrete provision, away from males, for a reason. Sex determines criminal behaviour, not gender identity. Trans men pose very little threat to women. Trans women pose the same threat as any other male. Women need and have a right to our own definitions and our own provision based on our biological sex, because the harms and discrimination are based on that biological sex. Someone's personal sense of gender identity has no relevance to that fact, and their hurt that they aren't being validated does not matter more than our own safety and dignity and comfort. Women matter too.
The EHRC admit that the sex protections under the Equality Act are differently applied, depending on whether or not someone has a GRC.
A trans person is protected from sex discrimination on the basis of their legal sex. This means that a trans woman who does not hold a GRC and is therefore legally male would be treated as male for the purposes of the sex discrimination provisions, and a trans woman with a GRC would be treated as female. The sex discrimination exceptions in the Equality Act therefore apply differently to a trans person with a GRC or without a GRC.
Without one, the comparator is birth sex, so there needs to be no additional reason to refuse access to a women only space. It's not discrimination on grounds of gender reassignment, because all males are excluded, not solely those who are transitioned or transitioning. If there is a GRC, the comparator is the sex that that GRC states, and then the only way to retain women only provision is to invoke the exceptions under gender reassignment, which is a far higher bar.
That isn't what the EHRC want to be the law, which is why they had to be pressured into issuing guidance that this was the case - their prior guidance was far more in line with Stonewall's preferred version. If Stonewall's version were in fact the law, Stonewall would never have bothered to campaign for GRA reform at all, nor to have the exceptions removed. They have done and are doing because yes, it does affect single sex provision. Which they want erased altogether, along with any definition of 'woman' that is determined by sex.
This woman either does not know this - which is troubling - or she is misrepresenting the facts - which is even more troubling. Though not as troubling as the EHRC claiming a GRC has no impact recently, when that runs contra to their own official guidance.