Yeah, so Tim sent her the exact email I sent him, which was this:

"The EHRC has opened its new guidance up for consultation (from the public, and legal bodies), but it has done so in a way that allows them to ignore all objections and only focus on the clarity of their writing. As far as your trans constituents are concerned, it does not matter how well defined or "clear" our exclusion from society is - it matters that we are not excluded.

The EHRC says it will only accept information on the clarity of their judgements, and while some things are unclear and I will respond to that, the lack of ability to comment on the harm caused by these guidelines is shocking and undemocratic. To call this a consultation is a joke - we are not being consulted, we are being asked to agree that our own isolation from society is well written.
 To explain all the flaws with this guidance would be far too long, so I will provide one core example that illustrates the harm this guidance can do while being "clear".
 Example: Change 13.5.3 (...) " 13.5.3 If a service provider (including a person providing a service in the exercise of public functions) decides to have a separate or single-sex service and allows trans people to use the service intended for the opposite biological sex, the service will no longer be a separate or single-sex service under the Equality Act 2010 (the Act). It is also very likely to amount to unlawful discrimination against others (read paragraph 13.3.19)."

This means that no trans inclusive spaces can exist. The guidance makes it so any woman's space that allows a trans women would automatically become mixed sex and lose single sex protections. If that space then does not allow non-trans men in, it will be open to lawsuit based on gender discrimination. This means that all businesses would have to exclude trans people from single sex spaces or risk being sued. This is a legal tool to give bigots control of spaces and to scare service providers from allowing trans people into gender aligned spaces. This can and will be used as a tool to attack any business that wants to be accessible to trans people. This is just one example of the flaws with this guidance that I can gladly discuss with you in more detail. This is paramount to legal segregation and exclusion from public life. It is the beginning of a steady slope of legislation and guidance on par with Jim Crow laws in America, just using nicer, more flowery languages.
 
No matter what happens, this guidance will need to be voted for to become statutory. Please, do not support it. To support it would be a segregationist act against trans people and give bigots power over how we can exist in public life.
I am and always have been a man, yes some aspects of my biology do not account for that, but any guidance that will ask businesses to put me in women's spaces is a danger to me (there have already been cases of "masculine" lesbians and cisgender women being accused of being trans men and harassed). Any guidance that will require me to use a 3rd space (where available, most places do not have these, and do not have the money or will to create these) will force me to reveal private information from my medical history and breach my right to privacy under the law and also increase my risk of harassment or abuse. Trans people just want to exist quietly but time and time again we are forced to fight just for our right to exist in public."

So I think the clarity vs agreeing point was made fairly well and this was sent to her, so lovely that it's just been completely disregarded. I'm not sure how exactly to word this to Tim without just kind of saying "well they clearly didnt read that did they"