Here I have lifted it from the transcript of the interview that you, yourself, keep posting.
She says:
"if you as an organization say this is the service we provide it is only for biological women, you can't be sued by someone with a gender recognition certificate"
She then goes on to discuss 'legal sex' and how legal sex has not changed Biological Sex. She then says:
”I said we clarifying the law to say that the equality act where it refers to sex is talking about biological sex”
Sure, she is confusing. But once you understand that she also seems to be attempting to escape the flak from activists in repeating that in some instances that male people will be still allowed into spaces designated for 'Biological Sex and those with gender of woman', you cut through some of the confusion.
It also helps to not go into listening to this interview viewing it as something to mock and denigrate, and to actually listen to what she is and isn't saying.
She is quite clear in the part of the interview that you keep posting and pointing to as if it is saying something that it isnt. She keeps repeating that biological sex and 'legal' sex are different and should be separate if an organisation states that they are saying they are biological sex only . She is very clear that legal sex should refer to gender and that 'within the equality act, 'sex' means Biological Sex'.
That she mentions preventing organisations being sued, well, she says that she is hoping to prevent people with GRC from suing organisations that exclude them. It is right there in the longer interview. So, even when she is discussing organisations being sued, she used 'by those with a GRC' when they are excluded.
If it helps, I will post the timings where she says these things so you can see it. What makes it confusing is that Ed Balls is trying to mischaracterise what she is saying and she is not giving in to that mischaracterisation.
He is saying 'I read the newspapers and I assumed you were saying the opposite I thought you were going to to legislate to say that people cannot change their sex at Birth where you're actually telling us you're going to clarify the law to say that somebody can change their legal sex which is very different.'
She then is clear and says:
“I’m sorry Ed, that's not that's not what I said we clarifying the law to say that the equality act where it refers to sex is talking about biological sex . You can change your gender, uh of course, you can that is why we have uh transgender people. But we want transgender to mean transgender. Sex is immutable. Biological sex is immutable, it doesn't matter what a piece of paper says. You cannot change your sex”
The full interview is here, and there is a transcript which I have copied and pasted so that I hope that you can see that you have indeed misunderstood.
Can you please post the sections that you believe she is saying that a male person with a GRC will still be able to access a space designated as being for biological women only - in other words, where a male person with a GRC will be able to access a single sex female space designated as such using an exception under the EA2010?
Maybe post the time stamp so we can all see what you have been laughing at all day.