Maya Forstater

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).

No. The law can not refer to sex without recognizing the legal change of sex that the GRA provides for. Especially since this particular law was written when the GRA was well established.