The article from the Committee for Academic Freedom on the previous page says this which fits with this:
Two things should be noted regarding these statements. First, the OfS specified that these policies were not in themselves in breach of the regulatory framework. The violations arose because Sussex had no “effective safeguards” that “adequately protected the expression of certain legally protected beliefs” in its other governing documents.
This means that universities can adopt quite restrictive trans-inclusion policies like the one above, as long as they make clear in their governing documents that lawful beliefs, including gender-critical beliefs, can be expressed.
One of the key points Kathleen Stock was making was that replacing sex with gender, removes protections from lesbians. It renders the meaning of homosexual meaningless and replaces it with homogender.
I go further than this and say there is rampant homophobia present within this.
Theres this little phrase on wiki about homophobia I keep coming back to:
Recognized types of homophobia include institutionalized homophobia, e.g. religious homophobia and state-sponsored homophobia, and internalized homophobia, experienced by people who have same-sex attractions, regardless of how they identify.
Universities replacing sex with gender and failing to recognise the protections of homosexuals in the rush to promote transgender policies are institutionally homophobic.
As pointed out, on these pages, many many times is the point that lesbians have not just one protected characteristics but two. Both of which are completely invisible in these guidelines which put trans above all else in a hierachical system rather than one based on equality of protections.
In other words we are now at a position where its recognised that sex MUST be acknowledge IN ADDITION TO gender identity rather than gender being used INSTEAD OF sex. This hasn't changed in law. The law has stayed the same. The difference is that we are seeing how this hasn't been done.
This is why these universities are continuing to fall down.
Academically speaking, a philosphical idea of gender CAN NOT replace sex for many many good reasons. Or it becomes nonsense. Cos reality. You lose all credibility overwise. If you have a legitimate reason to exclude trans you can. Its all about the legitimate aim. You can't dismiss negative stereotypes in academia - they may be stereotypes for a scientific or sociological reason which remains relevant to the functioning of society or an issue. The key is that research and use has that 'legitimate' element. Thus if you have an hypothesis you can explore it, as long as your methods are unbiased and there is a legitimate reason to discuss that issue. This is not harassment.
The problem central to this, is that some activists believe recognising sex instead of replacing it is harassment not legitimate aim as protected in law. Thats what has to stop.
Certainly, being a lesbian and feeling marginalised or coerced by males falls under this - the legitimate interest is to protect lesbians, it is NOT to marginalise or negatively stereotype or otherwise smear transwomen. We are centring lesbians in this scenario by focusing on harms to them as a group. This is allowed and an essential part of the law. Equally dictates that if one group are behaving in a way that is negatively impacting another protected group, then there needs to be awareness of this so it can be dealt with. It not only merits discussion, it means a discussion is necessary and essential for the good running of an organisation and to ensure academic standards.
Stonewall's betrayal of lesbians is at the very core of everything.