So the person who started the thread hasn’t read the SC judgment then?
It’s correct that the GRA uses the words “for all purposes” but there have always been exceptions. (The most interesting one is the peerages and inheritance so women cant trans their way to inheriting all the family silver!)
But alongside that theres a statement which means “any other law which would be in conflict” and this is discussed at length. Alongside the bit about lesbians not being attracted to someone with a certificate (ie having a female name on their gas bill for 2 years).
The arrogance and ignorance is breathtaking - the SC must have erred. Em no.