The EA2010 is entirely clear (I would think this is agreed) that possession, or not, of a GRC is entirely irrelevant to the protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment'.
So surely it must be entire clear that the Act has equally the same amount of don't-care-certificate-doesn't-matter when it comes to the (much less proximate, in GRA2004 terms) protected characteristic of 'sex'?
The EA2010 is entirely clear (I would think this is agreed) that possession, or not, of a GRC is entirely irrelevant to the protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment'.
So surely it must be entire clear that the Act has equally the same amount of don't-care-certificate-doesn't-matter when it comes to the (much less proximate, in GRA2004 terms) protected characteristic of 'sex'?
The EA2010 is entirely clear (I would think this is agreed) that possession, or not, of a GRC is entirely irrelevant to the protected characteristic of 'gender reassignment'.
So surely it must be entire clear that the Act has equally the same amount of don't-care-certificate-doesn't-matter when it comes to the (much less proximate, in GRA2004 terms) protected characteristic of 'sex'?