The equalities act is clear about transsexuals (people who have had medical intervention)
On the contrary, The Equality Act is clear that transsexuals have not necessarily had any medical intervention:
7 Gender reassignment
(1) A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.
(2) A reference to a transsexual person is a reference to a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.
(3) In relation to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment—
(a) a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a transsexual person;
(b) a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to transsexual persons.
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/7?timeline=false
So a person is a transsexual from the point at which they propose to “undergo a process (or part of a process)” etc.
This ”process (or part of a process)” that they are proposing, are undergoing or have undergone, need not involve any physiological changes, it may merely involve changing other (non-physiological) “attributes of sex”.
I do not know whether a haircut or growing one’s hair out would count as “physiological” or not but ”other attributes of sex” is a reference back to the GRA2004, where evidence includes documentation such as changing the name on your gas bill and people referring to you by opposite-sex pronouns.
This comes from cases taken to the European Court of Human Rights (I hope I have got that right because there were also relevant cases taken to the European Court of Justice).
Some of those cases refer to “sex identity”, which is equivalent to what is now referred to as “gender identity”. “Transsexualism” is referred to as a medical condition affecting self-perception, rather than to the outcome of chemically and/or surgically changed “physiology”.
The “other attributes of sex” referred to include manner of dress and behaving in a way that leads others to treat a person as if they are the opposite sex. It was taken as read that the only reason they would do this is that the transsexual person “passed” as the opposite sex, rather than that people were being kind or that they bought into the idea that thinking you are the opposite sex means you are actually the opposite sex.
Essentially, as far as The Equality Act is concerned, a transsexual is someone who simply believes that they are the opposite sex.
The GRA2004 requires that two doctors or a doctor and clinical psychologist confirm that they believe the person is telling the truth about this. It also requires some evidence that the person has made some sort of effort to “live” as the opposite sex. Gas bill, pronouns in your bio, etc.
This is the list of documents suggested:
www.gov.uk/apply-gender-recognition-certificate/what-documents-you-need
The Equality Act 2010 does not require any of that proof. All that the EA2010 requires is that a person is protected from being discriminated against by others who know that the person is a transsexual or believe that that the person is a transsexual.
See this example in the Equality Act Explanatory Notes:
“A person who was born physically female decides to spend the rest of her life as a man. He starts and continues to live as a man. He decides not to seek medical advice as he successfully ‘passes’ as a man without the need for any medical intervention. He would have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment for the purposes of the Act.”
www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/2/1/4
No medical intervention and no mention of a Gender Recognition Certificate because there is no need for either.
Sex Matters has published a good explanation:
sex-matters.org/resources/faqs-gender-reassignment/
The sleight of hand by which “transsexual” is now meant to be read as “transgender” causes even more problems. “Transgender” is a slippery, amorphous term that has led to a court case finding that a person who said they are “gender fluid” and “non-binary” was covered under the Equality Act protected characteristic of “gender reassignment” although this was not a legally-binding precedent.
sex-matters.org/posts/case-law/taylor-v-jaguar-land-rover/
“Gender fluidity” and “non-binary” appeared in that case to manifest itself in a propensity for random cross-dressing.
Although “trans” seems to be an increasingly popular prefix, the term “transvestite”, which literally means “cross dresser”, has been deemed just as verboten as “transsexual”. Presumably in an effort to memory-hole or create distance from research evidence and clinical knowledge about transvestic fetishism?
IMHO the GRA2004 and the EA2010 protected characteristic of gender reassignment both need to be binned because of their increasingly adverse impacts on women and children.