Another one for Rosie - "this ruling doesn't affect trans people in the slightest" - Duffield here.
So what's more likely?
Everyone like Barclays hallucinated what the Equality Act said for 15 years, or a judge chose to ignore a key part of it, as he wanted to be remembered for something foundationally changed before retiring, and was swayed in some way to do that?
Remember, the case was about if trans people were included in equal boards, not on facilities or sports or whatever else. Yet 'Lord' Hodge chose to go much further than that, as FWS said, 'they could dream of'.
So is it because he's anti-trans himself, or was he influenced by a 5 year non-stop hysteria to do it?
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/apr/30/barclays-boss-confirms-bank-will-bar-trans-women-from-using-female-bathrooms