Thank you, that's interesting to know. It seems disingenuous, not to mention odd, that a court of law is discussing this without pinning down what is actually meant by it. Because it's a fistful of smoke and a very obvious one.
The logical end point of this, of course, is the abolishing of all single-sex spaces, rights and exclusions.
Do you see it that way?
I don't see the battle here to turn everything everywhere mixed sex, I see it as wanting to preserve women's spaces in all things but male people can use them and be in them and part of them at will, whether or not female people consent or are negatively affected. It's the end of permitting female people any identity, space or right to group themselves without male presence and supervision as the subordination of females is part of this in not permitting them to be consulted or to refuse.
It will not be the end of permitting male people, since male people just laugh and say no. And because sex is a thing, they get listened to.
Which is why all male people can choose their personal preference of the moment of the three ponds at Hampstead Heath, but some female people cannot access any at all, at any time. Because male people said so, have the power to control this, and have organised it to suit male people's needs while overruling female disadvantage.