@SimonedeBeauvoirscat
Does the judgement in Maya’s case help at all, in terms of making it easier to successfully challenge GG’s policy?
The Essex Uni/Stonewall exposure is more helpful.
Maya's case helps Katie and Helen who were expelled from GGUK, as they can claim that they expressed their beliefs, as enshrined under the EQA, and were thrown out for doing so.
My beef is with safeguarding. The inclusion policy is the antithesis of safeguarding, putting data protection (the right to the trans person's privacy) in front of informed consent (the rights of girls and their parents to know whether there will be a natal boy sharing tents/intimate spaces with natal girls). It is based on "Stonewall Law", i.e., that self ID is enshrined in the EQA (it is not) and that "trans girls" are a protected group (they are not, nobody can hold a GRC under the age of 18). Stonewall's influence in GGUK inclusion policy may have been via Aimee Challenor, somebody who is married to a self confessed "minor attracted person".
The policy is also is discriminatory precisely because a boy cannot hold a GRC. Therefore, it excludes one category of boy - boys that don't believe themselves to be girls, but allows other boys in - those that do think of themselves as girls. For the purposes of the law, both categories are legally boys, and therefore, the policy discriminates against some boys.
The policy indirectly discriminates against girls for whom a single sex organisation is necessary for religious purposes.
Finally, as the policy breaks the law, I don't see why I should be forced to break the law on behalf of GGUK, or put a girl at risk because they have been given unsound advice and will not listen.