And that's the point I would really quite like a psychiatrist's view, because that reasoning and view of other human beings is distorted to the point of being severely concerning. Not someone needed anywhere near women in a state of undress, thank you for the demonstration there.
Officials could also face disciplinary action if they repeatedly refused to refer to trans people by their preferred pronouns
'Repeatedly' being the operative word there. The guidance makes clear that accidents and the speaker having needs of their own are relevant, so this would be on a par for example with some idiot making repeatedly inappropriate sexual remarks to a colleague or needling them about their weight, (which would be plain old harassment the same as any other kind of harassment, nothing special to see here).
However, it also warned staff against “confronting” biological men using the wrong facilities, saying it could “amount to unlawful harassment”.
BUT to report it to manager who will deal with it. Because it's against staff policy. Although I can't see in a court room a woman who says to a man 'this is the women's single sex space, you know this, you are intentionally and wilfully invading it, please leave right now', is going to be done for harassment - because HE is the one harassing her and every other woman, and has laid himself open to many questions about his motives, which were obviously dodgy from the moment he walked inside. The act of intentionally entering by itself is an annoucement of ill intent towards the women there.
No, I think this does the job very well.