They are working within the current law.
The current law is sufficient to protect women's actual rights.
That is different to cultural attitudes and protocols.
I, personally, see this as a step in the right direction.
Partly because it deconstructs the law down to its constituent parts and how it can be exploited. Thereby urging parliament to make the exemptions more visible and more commonly applied.
There is no law that says men can't say they are women, or go into women's toilets. Or, apparently, rape refuges and shelters.
But.
By asking, or insisting, on clarification around how women can reject men, they will, eventually, alter the public perception of what is and isn't acceptable.
"A proportionate means to legitimate aim."
I'm thinking of, say, a lesbian public gathering.
The organisers would have to take a poll of the lesbians and poll of the transwomen and make a decision.
Currently, transactivists disregard this process. By intimidation and bullying.
What needs to happen is that women acquire an unshakable conviction they can use the law to ensure their 'legitimate aim'.
It needs to become utterly commonplace, before the culture subsequently rides with it.
Recently there have been two incidents. The company who made bras for adolescent girls and the vegan lesbian restaurant.
They were both targeted and piled on by transactivists in attempt to change the words in their marketing and/or shut them down.
Then there was another company (I can't remember what they were selling/providing) who said:
WOMEN ONLY
As per the equality act section 2 sub clause 5
(or whatever it is).
Yes, transactivists could still have targeted them. But, culturally, it was a lot harder because the women knew the law.
Women complaining that they will not avail themselves of the service IS a legitimate aim.
They just need to invoke it. No company would be criticised for saying, but we will lose half our customers.