If Self id isn't law then why?

[XXylophonic]

If Self ID isn't law (not in England anyway) then why are councils and the NHS treating it as though it is law?
I'm hoping you wise women can help me out here because I'm getting increasingly muddled.
For example, Manchester City Council state that anyone who self ID's as a woman can use single sex facilities such as women's homeless shelters and women's swimming sessions. Note they say single sex, not single gender. The same applies to single sex wards in hospitals.
Now I understand that someone with a GRC becomes the legal opposite sex, if not biological because that's impossible, and could therefore legally enter women's spaces because they are legally female. But Self ID? That isn't law, they are neither legally nor biologically female.
So why are they allowing Self ID trans identified males the same access as those with a GRC? What need is there for a GRC now? How can they legally do this?
I've googled but I'm just getting the usual TWAW waffle.
Thanks for any insights that would help confused me out?

It did go for consultation, and everyone inclined to got carried away and behaved as if it were a done deal. Some with Stonewall advice that they could....

I think now they have done it they are too scared to undo it, because of the TRAs. Even where they know they are wrong and have overstepped.

And they either forgot women exist or knew they do and don't care. Tor they just assumed women would "be kind" and put up with it.
I saw an interview with a woman who was high up in coaching an American sport. She said (paraphrasing) that when she started challenging men being allowed in women sports the response from men higher up was "we can't risk them suing us". She said what about the women suing and got a "oh, they won't, women don't make the same fuss" response.

Nrtft so apologies if this is repeating someone else's post. I think the EA says businesses may offer SS services. It doesn't appear they're obliged to. This is possibly because a small cafe/dress shop, for example, may only have room for one toilet/changing cubicle. Then Stonewall, and their ilk, came along, got m&s, etc. to pay them so be misled and bamboozled. Having started down the trans pathway they're finding it humiliating to realise how wrong they were. I think it's a recognised thing that victims of scams will often double down rather than admit they've been fooled. Add trans allies in their HR departments, fear of tra influences, the unions, their blue-haired staff, twitter storms amplified by a compliant media and affected women too busy and/or afraid to complain. We've seen what happens to individuals who do make a stand.

I think there's a lady who is sueing Lloyd's gyms and it recently kicked off on GBNews regarding Virgin Active.

As I said it doesn't appear in the EA for SS spaces to be mandatory. Just the possibility that it's not illegal to have them if they want. The H&S regs don't appear to apply to customers only staff.

I'd love to be wrong though.

Rape crisis centres are specifically mentioned in the explanatory notes of the EA as a case when the SS exemption applies.
The exemptions cover exactly what you would expect, it's just Stonewall propaganda that the proportionality test is a high bar.

Gah! Exceptions, not exemptions.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5291237-nhs-policy-audit-working-party?reply=142987253

Relevant: how we got here.

You've heard of the Military Industrial Complex? This is a trans-specific EDI Industrial Complex in action. ...

I agree that it is the pesky “proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim” that muddies the water. Add in Stonewall spouting rubbish about what the law actually is and you get confusion - and of course you have to take into account that if there is any doubt they will probably weigh up who is likely to be most litigious if they dont get what they want.....

they will probably weigh up who is likely to be most litigious if they dont get what they want.....

Hopefully, the many legal cases women have won will cause a reassessment of that.

It was government and weak legal teams in councils and nhs that just waved it all through . They had years of getting away with not applying the EqA correctly, in part because it was assumed that they were getting ahead of the law and self id was inevitable.

When May proposed changing the GRA, all parties were onside, it was only the public consultation that stopped it. Politicians were lobbied by stonewall, and then paying stonewall to train public and private sector service providers.

For a service to be single sex, the provider has to demonstrating “proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim”. Theres no way they can complete the analysis based on gender, because its not defined, and what factors determine that eddie izzard should be excluded from female service, but suzy izzard should be included?

The obviously determine proportionality based on sex, then switch to gender when when a man demands access.

Aren't they breaking the law by allowing Self ID?

In some areas they are acting unlawfully but until they get sued they will continue to follow what they have been advised is the law by activist DEI companies and groups like Stonewall.

I thought at the very least this required a GRC.

Surrey Police put out a statement this week saying it’s illegal to ask to see a GRC. This is clearly untrue. You have to wonder who is advising them.

It was entirely abusive.

Yes, but that doesn’t matter because it’s women that are being abused. This is entirely an anti-women, male supremacist movement.

The thing about a GRC and birth certificates is that alone, they arent particularly useful ids on a day to day basis. And single sex spaces arent traditionally id in the way age restricted places are.

The GRC was designed to let the holder gain the birth certificate, but i think it was assumed that a non passing man wouldnt use it for anything other than admin purposes? What would the point of having female id to gain access to female spaces when it was obvious they were male? Thats probably why men without grc continue to be allowed to change id.

So i can see that GRC would be a private document only relevant for tax codes and retirement dates.

But trans awareness has been promoted and women are taking testosterone. This means that the public have been told that the man with female id is a woman, and some woman do look very masculine because of gender treatment.

So there is confusion around SSE where there never was before. Are trans men classed as female because they are, even though they have male id, are men classed as female because they have female id. Does having a GRC make a difference? If it does, then it how can anyone change their passport? What happens to female detransitioners who have female id, maybe a male birth certificate, but look very masculine?

The government have watched a mess unfold, and still dont have a clue what to do.