The fact that there are exceptions in the EA 2010 for trans people in relation to single sex services doesn’t mean that there’s a preexisting right for them to use those services, as @Frances_Coppola seems to think.

This is a common misconception.

The way it works is this 🧵⬇️:

There would only be a preexisting right for a transwoman without a GRC to use a women-only service if excluding transwomen from the service amounted to *direct gender reassignment discrimination* against them. But it doesn’t….

Under the EA transwomen without GRCs are men. All men are excluded from women-only services. Therefore, there’s no direct discrimination.
The only kind of discrimination a transwoman without a GRC might be able to complain of is indirect gender reassignment discrimination…

The argument would be that it’s more disadvantageous for transwomen to be excluded from the service than it is for other men. There’s a possible defence to indirect discrimination claims: the service provider can argue that it’s justified to run the service for bio women only…

The outcome would rest entirely on the facts of the individual case.
The existence of a possible indirect discrimination claim certainly does not translate into a preexisting right to use women-only services. Only a possible direct discrimination claim would do that…

Now for the exception in Sch 3 para 28 EA. What this does is to prevent trans people from bringing **any kind** of discrimination claim about being excluded from single sex services, as long as the service provider can show that the way they run the service is justified…

For transwomen without GRCs, the exception is irrelevant as far as direct discrimination is concerned, because they never had a direct discrimination claim. The exception stops them bringing indirect discrimination claims, because those are their only possible claims…

The situation is different for transwomen with GRCs, because under the EA they are women (as the law currently stands). Thus they do have a preexisting right to use women-only services, and it follows that they have a prima facie direct gender reassignment discrimination claim…

The exception in Sch 3 para 28 prevents them from bringing those direct discrimination claims, as long as the conditions are satisfied…

So in summary the para 28 exception prevents two different kinds of claim:
1) indirect discrimination claims from transwomen without GRCs who do not have a preexisting right to use the service but might have an arguable case that it’s particularly detrimental to them to be...

excluded from the service, subject to a justification defence; and…
2) direct discrimination claims from transwomen with GRCs who do have a preexisting right to use the service...

This is all perfectly consistent with the fact that GRCs are the only route by which a trans person can obtain the legal rights of the opposite sex.

/end