Maya Forstater

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

And you know, it is rather interesting how those allegedly "against self-ID" and "wanting balance" always show themselves up as being against the current GRA too, for the kind of biological designation enforcement that is illegal across the Council of Europe.

On the contrary, it mandates a change of the "civil status" of sex, based on a diagnosis alone. (There is no ECHR self-ID mandate. There is a PACE recommendation, which is not binding).