[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Pierre

If that’s the foundation of your argument, you’re on shaky ground.

https://drdavepoolinfo.com/faq/menta...re%20important.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/snooker/...n-transgender/



Which negates most of the reasons for the need of it.

The slogan TWAW, is now meaningless because they are not, by law. If a female was in a bathroom in my place of work and Trans-female identifying man walked in the bathroom, she could quite rightly complain to HR and have something done about.




Yes and a man with GRC, that says he is a woman, is a man.

Not sure your Dr Dave link quite fits the law.

(3) A gender-affected activity is a sport, game or other activity of a competitive nature in circumstances in which the physical strength, stamina or physique of average persons of one sex would put them at a disadvantage compared to average persons of the other sex as competitors in events involving the activity.

Trans men can be banned from certain women's sports(eg boxing).

236. On the other hand, a biological definition of sex would mean that a women’s boxing competition organiser could refuse to admit all men, including trans women regardless of their GRC status. This would be covered by the sex discrimination exception in section 195(1). But if, in addition, the providers of the boxing competition were concerned that fair competition or safety necessitates the exclusion of trans men (biological females living in the male gender, irrespective of GRC status) who have taken testosterone to give them more masculine attributes, their exclusion would amount to gender reassignment discrimination, not sex discrimination, but would be permitted by section 195(2). It is here that the gender reassignment exception would be available to ensure that the exclusion is not unlawful, whether as direct or indirect gender reassignment discrimination.

169. The only other guidance as to the meaning of these expressions is given in the general interpretation provisions in section 212(1) which provide:
“In this Act …
‘man’ means a male of any age; …
‘woman’ means a female of any age.”
170. In other words, what is made unlawful is sex discrimination against women and men; and the provision in section 212(1) ensures that boys and girls are protected against discrimination connected to their sex.
171. The definition of sex in the EA 2010 makes clear that the concept of sex is binary, a person is either a woman or a man. Persons who share that protected characteristic for the purposes of the group-based rights and protections are persons of the same sex and provisions that refer to protection for women necessarily exclude men. Although the word “biological” does not appear in this definition, the ordinary meaning of those plain and unambiguous words corresponds with the biological characteristics that make an individual a man or a woman. These are assumed to be self-explanatory and to require no further explanation. Men and women are on the face of the definition only differentiated as a grouping by the biology they share with their group.

The definition of "male" and female" can be different outside of the definition of "man" and "woman" in the EA 2010.
Rather than define "male and "female", they just insert an implicit "biological" for the definition of "man" and "woman".
The judgment repeatedly refers to a biological male with a GRC to be legally female.

265. We are aware that this is a long judgment. It may assist therefore if we summarise our reasoning.
(i) The question for the court is a question of statutory interpretation; we are concerned with the meaning of the provisions of the EA 2010 in the light of section 9 of the GRA (para 2).
(ii) Parliament in using the words “man” and “woman” in the SDA 1975 referred to biological sex (paras 36-51).
...
(vi) The context in which the EA 2010 was enacted was therefore that the SDA 1975 definitions of “man” and “woman” referred to biological sex and trans people had the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.
...