A claim made not only with no basis but also no evidence. The Equality Act 2010 (hereafter referred to as EqA) has been in force since 2010. Service providers especially providers of sensitive services are and have been fully aware of the law since that point, not least because the EHRC drew up the currently operating Statutory Codes of Practice which were accepted in 2011

The reality is that not only are sensitive service providers already fully aware of the law, they also make the conscious decision not to use the exemptions as not only do they accept that for the service they provide it is not a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim, but that they also have no need to use the exemptions. Likewise providers of non-sensitive services (such as high-street style services) have the full opportunity to know and understand the law

And confirmation that the law is what trans-inclusive campaigners is what it says it is in such regards was upheld by the courts in 2014 in Brooks v Tasker. It is noticeable that whenever Brooks v Tasker (2014) is brought up TERFs immediately try to deflect to an earlier case that has absolutely no bearing on the decision reached in the Brooks v Tasker case, somehow trying to use a judgement on the enforcement of existing prison guidelines at the time as somehow equivalent to service provision on the high street when of course anybody with even a little legal knowledge knows that is not how precedent works and could not be correctly applied in that way

There is no “creeping misinterpretation and misapplication of the current legislation on these services”. The reality is that service providers are fully able to use exemptions when it is both lawful to do so and if they wish to do so. It is telling that those service providers who would almost certainly be acting lawfully by applying a Schd3 Part 7 s.28 exemption (domestic abuse shelters, etc) choose not to do so because they have stated on record that they have no need to use that exemption