I can see your point but the EHRC is a public body and must be independent. The TRAs would quickly accuse it of bias in our favour if it funded harassment cases for sex realistic women. It is also not a court and the only place to decide if an employee has been discriminated against, is a court of law.
Besides, we don't need another case. The law has been clarified by the Supreme Court. The Equality Act 2010 intended for sex to mean biological sex. Self ID was never lawful and men identifying as women were never permitted access to single sex facilities. The Deputy President of the Supreme Court and lead judge in FWS, Lord Patrick Hodge, said in an interview with the Times, "people had been led to believe by public authorities, among others, for the last 15 years that they had rights which they didn’t have. So I have some sympathy, quite a lot of sympathy, with the feeling that they had something taken away from them."
The GLP application for judicial review is very likely to fail because the law is settled and has been settled by the highest court in the land. No lower court is going to go against that. The only way that this is changed is if Parliament rewrites the Equality Act and there is no appetite for that.
What we are seeing is a string of employment law cases where employees with sex realist views have been badly treated by their employers because they hold these views. Most of them will win. This is not about clarifying the law, but about getting redress for harassment or dismissal. Some of the cases will be appealed and any Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) ruling will set a precedent that is binding on future cases.
Over the next five years we will see a dwindling of these cases because employers will finally work out that they must obey the law and will stop directly discriminating on these grounds. Because it's expensive. And ruins their reputations.
I expect to see tougher cases emerge where sex realists are indirectly discriminated against in the same way that racist employers no longer say they pay someone less because they are black but because the employee is not good enough.
I also expect to see cases where trans-identifying people take their employers to court for failing to provide gender neutral facilities. This will probably affect women who identify as men in particular because they may not be permitted to use the women's facilities.
We won't win every case. Sometimes the Bananarama defence may be true. Employees may be legitimately dismissed for expressing their beliefs in an aggressive and disrespectful manner. Imagine Glinner confronting someone trans in the workplace and calling them names - that could be a legitimate dismissal.
The EHRC is there to provide guidance on the law so that employers and service providers don't have to interpret the Equality Act for themselves. Sadly that guidance was corrupted by activists so that trans identifying people (and their employers and service providers) believed they had the right to access the opposite sex's single sex spaces. The guidance has been updated and submitted to the government who have chucked it into the long grass. It doesn't matter. The law is the law, even without the guidance.