(vi) 'Legal sex' or, as the SC referred to it "certificated sex" (ie the possession of a GRC) is meaningless for the purposes of the Equality Act.
Given the reach of your publication and the amount of misinformation already abroad about this, would you mind amending your article?

(iv) Neither the protected characteristic of gender reassignment nor possession of a GRC entitles a person to be treated as the opposite sex under the Equality Act.
(v) The Scottish Ministers' position represented the courts' understanding prior to the SC's ruling.
and finally/...

I'm afraid this piece is incorrect in a number of important respects.
(i) No one argued that a man without a GRC could be treated as a woman under the Equality Act.
(ii) The Scottish Ministers argued that a man with a GRC could be so treated.
(iii) The Supreme Court disagreed.
/...

*waves furiously"

In an almost sarcastic reminder of how well Sir Brian's Big Ideas work in practice, Common Platform users are being met with this message right now.

Thank you for doing this.

That's perfectly fair - the lighting does mean that the 'Not A' is very difficult to make out. It is in purple and runs bottom to top to the left of the white 'Victory'.

Hi Peter, my t-shirt said "Not A Victory", and I began by talking about how the restoration of anything lost (such as the proper symmetry of legal protections) so frequently feels like a victory, although I appreciate that context doesn't lend as much support for your indignant tone.

Not (yet) blocked. You are missing nothing particularly thoughtful or illuminating, as far as I can see.

Legally, there would be no difficulty in the gym excluding this person, even if the claim to be biologically female were to be accepted (Sch 3, para 28 Equality Act 2010, and para 221 of the FWS judgment).
So your concerns about protecting women from men pretending to be women can be allayed.