I forgot about Pepper v Hart. I hope there are clever lawyers and sharp SpAds on the case because it seems as though there are implications.
The other PC to consider is disability. The EQA does not - and specifically does not - allow individuals to self-ID as disabled.
We hear so much that getting a GRC is "invasive" and "traumatic". Well, many of the processes around help for disabled people are as well. Perhaps rightly, perhaps wrongly. But they exist because we have to have clear distinctions between someone with poor eyesight and someone who's blind or partially sighted:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachmentdata/file/570382/EqualityyAct2010-disabilityydefinition.pdf
We have those because we do different things for disabled people to help make their lives easier and to make things more level and fair. Fair. Not "inclusive" - another problem so far as the EQA is concerned as it's not in it but it bandied around like it is. Fairness is part of it though.
Social groups have to have definitions in order to exist. Where things are uneven or unfair, we put things in place to try and make them less uneven and more fair.
Where there are implications, so too must there be tools to deal with them. Like I said, let's hope clever people are dealing with this because if they're not then we may as well go back 100 years or more in terms of women's rights and child safety.