I’m fully aware of how the system works, thank you very much for explaining at me. I’m saying the ruling itself is arse backwards and jumps to a lot of baseless and genuinely misogynistic conclusions. It is difficult to read it as an objective clarification on anything, let alone a positive one.

In which case the ruling, even if one was to accept it as a valid interpretation, let alone its effect on people involved, is arse backwards and has the potential to cause significant harm in the short term.

Decades of gender = sex in legal wording, documents and policy makes it very difficult to detangle the intent of what is meant by sex or gender in each case.

This particularly undermimes obtaining a GRC which updates the specifically labelled ‘Sex’ field on a birth certificate. So now we can have people with legal documents stating their ‘Sex’ being barred from same sex spaces aligning with their documentation.

I think you are thinking of network rail who owns the infrastructure. GBR came about in 2021 when none of the operating companies were getting any money and so the government basically ran it for them. Basically it is de-facto back in public hands and GBR will take over once each operating company’s contract is up (I think SWR is first). At least that is my understanding of it.

Also the rolling stock wasnt typically owned by the operating companies, they would lease them from the ones who did like Angel trains and Porterbrook.

Isn’t that what GBR is already set up for in regards to rail?