Thanks for the link, it all looks very encouraging, a summery of the situation -
At the centre of the case lies a genuine legal collision, not between law and prejudice, but between two protected frameworks: the rights of female pupils to privacy, dignity, and sex-based protections, and the rights of gender-questioning pupils to non-discrimination and inclusion.
What distinguishes this case is the setting. Unlike workplaces or voluntary environments, school attendance is compulsory, pupils are minors, and changing rooms involve inherent physical vulnerability. The courts are therefore being asked not whether inclusion is desirable, but how far it may lawfully extend when it conflicts with safeguarding obligations grounded in statute.
I'm not sure I'd characterise it as 'gender-questioning' as more gender changing, if they were just questioning it the school wouldn't be insisting that males could go into female changing rooms. But I expect I'm being picky.