It’s worth looking at the Goodwin judgement to see where this all comes from. Again, IANAL, but there was a couple of things highlighted about Goodwin by Peter Daly following the FWS case, in response to the suggestion that the trans lobby take their case against the FWS judgement to the ECHR to re litigate & seek to over turn it.
This post includes a section from the Goodwin Judgement which explains why the privacy clause in the GRA over disclosing whether someone has a GRC or not was included.
https://x.com/peter_daly/status/1916519040861736994?s=46
The attached screen shot highlights the part I think is relevant:
Goodwin highlights concerns over a new employer linking details of his previous identity to his NI number (revealing his status change) and then says he began experiencing difficulties at work, colleagues stopped talking to him (around the time his employer made the link via NI number to his previous ID) and he was told people were talking about him behind his back. The link to ‘outing’ him to colleagues is insinuated as being from the employer sharing private/personal information that Goodwin feels changed the atmosphere for him at work. The fact that his sex would have been obvious to anyone he worked with, when they met him in person, or spoke to him via the phone doesn’t factor.
Here’s a post including a short clip of Goodwin on a TV program:
https://x.com/mforstater/status/1688461766848643072?s=46
The privacy element of the GRA - and the significant punitive measures attached to that - make it seem that employers were being reckless with personal information about transsexual employees & that resulted in staff/co-workers treating transsexual employees badly. Where I think this element of the GRA goes too far is the assumption that, without the employer carelessly or maliciously revealing someone’s claimed ‘gender identity’ to other employees, their privacy & identity would be robustly protected. It fails completely to factor in the fact it’s obvious to almost all people when someone is falsifying their sex when you meet them in person. And we’ve all seen too clearly over the past 10/15 years how reasonable comments/opinions are taking in very different ways to what is intended, by people who lack a solid grounding in their own reality & who intentionally overreact, in bad faith, to a reasonable person’s failure to collude in the lie. SP is a prime example of this. In my mind, it sets up the unrealistic expectation that when someone claims to identify as something they are not - a man claiming to be a woman, or vice versa - that is a private matter & everyone has to go along with the idea that what someone claims to be is what they are. And to do/say otherwise is a great injury to that person.
It’s part of the reason we’re dealing with unreasonable expectations & demands from what is a small group of people, who expect their demands (no matter how unreasonable) to be met.
Peter Daly’s long thread is interesting to read & it’s useful to follow his arguments on why he thinks the ECHR wouldn’t result in the outcome the trans lobbyists would hope for, and in fact, it might go as far as embedding the FWS further.
This is a slight tangent but it’s interesting to consider where that aspect of all of this comes from. And to what extent there was any consideration as to how this would work in practice.