Thanks LangClegs so are you saying they have literally (sorry for use of literally) made up their own version of the law? As far as I can understand from the Explanatory notes below), it is pretty clear that it is the type of service or space that can exclude. Their version seems to be so far from the original that it cannot be called an ‘interpretation’, it is a new meaning.
If their version implies that lawful exclusion is on a person by person basis - how does an organisation do that fairly? What measures can they possibly put in place that says ‘this person can come in, but this person can’t’.
Is that the deliberate attempt to make it apparently so difficult for organisations to decide who to exclude that they end up letting everyone in?
Very telling that they only talked to trans groups on this rather than any advocates for the other groups that are directly affected!! ‘no man is an island’ etc.
733.This paragraph contains exceptions to the general prohibition of sex discrimination to allow the provision of single-sex services.
734.Single sex services are permitted where:
only people of that sex require it;
there is joint provision for both sexes but that is not sufficient on its own;
if the service were provided for men and women jointly, it would not be as effective and it is not reasonably practicable to provide separate services for each sex;
they are provided in a hospital or other place where users need special attention (or in parts of such an establishment);
they may be used by more than one person and a woman might object to the presence of a man (or vice versa); or
they may involve physical contact between a user and someone else and that other person may reasonably object if the user is of the opposite sex.
735.In each case, the separate provision has to be objectively justified.
736.These exceptions also cover public functions in respect of the “back-room” managerial, administrative and finance decisions which allow such single-sex services to be provided.
Background
737.This paragraph replaces some similar provisions that only covered public functions and some that applied to services in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. These exceptions have been extended to cover both services and public functions.
Examples
738.These exceptions would allow:
a cervical cancer screening service to be provided to women only, as only women need the service;
a fathers’ support group to be set up by a private nursery as there is insufficient attendance by men at the parents’ group;
a domestic violence support unit to be set up by a local authority for women only but there is no men-only unit because of insufficient demand;
separate male and female wards to be provided in a hospital;
separate male and female changing rooms to be provided in a department store;
a massage service to be provided to women only by a female massage therapist with her own business operating in her clients’ homes because she would feel uncomfortable massaging men in that environment.
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/16/20/7
There are other relevant bits as well.