Maya Forstater

But (a) "may" (with proportional reasons) never "must", (b) exceptions are not fundamental rights as there is no such thing as a right to discriminate.

For the record my own positions is that exceptions should be retained, but narrow interpretations for the reasons should be published (many already are, just not very publicized) and importantly a public notice requirement should be added.

As in, any "male" or "female" facility includes trans people in their preferred gender unless there is an explicit declaration otherwise posted.

How would this apply in situations of sex segregation due to bodily privacy (e.g. Under Schedule 3, s27 6b) "The circumstances are such that a person of one sex might reasonably object to presence of a person of the opposite sex"? This says nothing about preferred gender

s28 (not the historical one. though the coincidence is fun) has to be invoked to exclude any trans people, and I would add a requirement to state this explicitly and publicly.

No it doesn't. S 26 & 27 allow services to be provided to persons of *one sex*. This will also exclude people who happen to have other protected characteristics in addition to sex, but they are not being excluded because of those *other* protected characteristics.

Sex in this law is a legal, not a biological, category, and the GRA 2004 explicitly states that some people change legal sex. The ECHR Nicot case also requires this, with criteria more loose than GRA, so one way or the other reform will have to happen (with or without self-ID).