I have a problem with the way the EHRC has interpreted the SC ruling in their draft guidance and I do not believe it will stand. (Although people are so nuts these days, you never know).
I don't know why you have a problem, it's just a summary of the SC ruling. Nothing added, no bells and whistles. It's simplified, but accurate and factual, in order to be a practical guide.
You've essentially conceded that it's going g through, with your fake claim that people are nuts, even though you, against all reason, seem to think it won't be approved.
What's a "non transw," by the way? There's no such thing, as far as I can comprehend. I mean, there are women, who are female humans and transw, who are male humans, who would like to have us believe that they are not males, even though they always have been and continue to be.