Maya Forstater

You seem to be arguing from a user right to expect segregation, but UK law does not have such a right. The closest I can think of is a Canadian case, which establishes a right to privacy from "other sex" when nude only.

However, when there is actual shared nudity (not the case in toilets), the "indistinguishable for all practical purposes" guidance can be applied, which in that specific case means genital configuration as visible. It was probably written *for* that specific case.

No. If a woman is vulnerable in a space which she has been told is female only and hears a man's voice, she does not have to wait to *see* his genitals to distinguish and to panic. People should be told clearly if spaces are single sex or mixed sex.

The current government guidance says otherwise. you want to make the law, as practiced, more restrictive towards trans people.

1) Women have exemptions under the Equality Act for good reasons. If anyone can claim to be a woman, with or without a GRC, it renders those exemptions unenforcable. A majority of those who claim a female gender identity are physically male. Statistics show that they're no less

Users (women or otherwise) do not have any claim to a right to segregation under EA 2010. The exceptions are opt-in for providers and *also* require proportional cause, which means that a legitimate aim can not reasonably be achieved in a less restrictive way.

Right but that is the point. If you opt in to having a female changing room (or other service) then this means you exclude males from it. There isn't a "less restrictive" way of providing a female only service than only including females. Or you don't, and you make it mixed sex.

Unless the place is political or religious, "providing a female only service" is not a legitimate aim in itself, but a means to some other aim, such as privacy. For example, in a clothing shop privacy is provided by cubicles - the guidance is clear about that.