I think the SC WILL clean up the mess tbh.
It is literally points to have sex AND gender reassignment as separate classifications within the Equality Act.
The Equality Act also laid out cases where it's ok to discriminate to protect women in certain scenarios.
What is the point in these exceptions if they cease to exist because of a piece of paper? Does the dignity and legal rights of women to hold certain beliefs suddenly evaporate because of a piece of paper?
And it's very hard to argue that women and giry DO NOT deserve protection under existing voyeurism and child protection laws.
So it's not just the Equality Act that's in direct conflict with the GRA. It's also other laws.
Especially when the purpose of these laws relates to sexual gratifications and issues over lack of consent or ability to consent.
The Haldane ruling is still problematic in my eyes, but relates primarily to 'social acceptance' rather than biological function. (I do think it falls foul of indirect discrimination against women though).
And that's where we will probably see the line drawn - along the lines of biological function exclusive to males/males and the issue of sexual gratification. (This then covers pregnancy, lesbians and men wanking off in changing rooms and toilets).
That's effectively going to throw the practical use and application of the GRA into turmoil though and raise questions about whether it's legally fit for purpose.
But this then does feed into politics and the implications of this. Labour have actually said they want to make it easier to get a GRC. It's a manifesto pledge, not just some random promise. But a GRC is only useful in certain situations anyway. What's the point in a GRC if it doesn't give you superpowers? You are just another non-conforming male and probably still in the possession of a penis.
You also have issues about a conflict with the GRA and freedom of belief still though. Pronouns being your big issue here. Again we run into issues pretty quickly with legal cases too. The dignity of women IS affected by the use of non gendered language too. So you can't just reduce women to bodily functions. The most you can do is use pregnant women and transmen and name them separately rather than collectively - or similar in the appropriate way for the appropriate situation. Effectively third spacing.
The Supreme Court CAN NOT force individuals to ignore sex in favour of gender identity - and since both are mentioned. The importance of sex is written into law as separate is important and there are implications for healthcare which negatively affects trans people if you fail to acknowledge sex. Regardless of how anyone identifies. The SC cant overnight criminalise a doctor legitimately asking sex based questions because that would be insane and against the interests of trans people themselves too.
So in terms of the law v politics, I think you can't separate them - they overlap precisely because they act as checks and balances to each other and one creates the other to a large extent. They have a symbiosis.
And I don't think that which ever way the ruling does go, that the Supreme Court won't leave a giant turd for Labour to clean up in terms of rectifying huge conflicts within the legislation.
I personally think it's the GRA that's ultimately the problem here precisely because there's at least three laws it's directly in conflict with.
I could be wrong, but logically speaking it makes sense when you look at the intent, purpose and history of the Equality Act, Voyeurism laws AND Freedom of Belief laws. The same can not be said for the GRA which was largely created for a purpose that's largely redundant.
What I can see the result being is effective self ID BUT a formal legal disbarring from certain situations and the implications of that putting requirements for companies and organisations to adopt third ways. It would potentially criminalise using wrong sex toilets. It would also knock on the head forced pronouns and change diversity training in this area but lean in hard on existing discrimination and harassment laws to otherwise protect trans people in everyday life.
Because quite honestly it's literally the only way that you can achieve a balancing of rights across the board and still maintain equality for all.
The problem is all those altered birth certificates being in conflict with this and leaving a bunch of people in limbo.
Im struggling to see how the SC can rule differently given how the conflicts work in law and the history of the law. I could be massively wrong on this, but the law is essentially about reasoning and looking at the letter of the law.
And since the EA ALLOWS for discrimination on the basis of sex this is the key point.
Of course if I am right (and I might not be) this is all going to upset the trans lobby massively. But Labour could still lean in on the idea of reforming the GRA and making it easier to get a GRC (or equivalent) whilst simultaneously destroying much of the point of getting one - by introducing 'self ID' but with those legal disbarring from certain female facilities and services. They could try and spin it, but I don't think that will work either.
But yeah, I think that's where this is all liable to head.
We shall see.