Why? The law is clear: "for all purposes" except where s9.3 applies.

But here's what the Justices say about clauses in the Equlaity Act from the FWS case:

Yes, those described in the GRA act s.9.1. The holder of a GRC is for all purposes legally of the sex assigned except where statute decree otherwise:

The law disagrees with you:

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7...

The law has only established that under certain circumstances exclusion of trans people is not discriminatory. It is far from clear how that relates to wider questions not considered by the court. For example, see:
uklabourlawblog.com/2025/05/07/t...

The law has only established that under certain circumstances exclusion of trans people is not discriminatory. It is far from clear how that relates to wider questions not considered by the court. For example, see:
uklabourlawblog.com/2025/05/07/t...

Ridiculous, both from the EHRC and the guardian reporting.

www.theguardian.com/world/2025/n...

The Supreme Court did not rule that "the legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex"

The judgement itself makes this clear:

The future looks very good.

Yougov poll, voting intention 18 to 24 year olds>