Wouldn't it be ironic if this person were turned away from womens' toilets for looking insufficiently feminine?

If they thought they could avoid litigation by doing this, they are about to find out the hard way that they won't. The Good Law Project are saying "See you in court."

Well, if they wanted to avoid litigation, they have failed. The Good Law Project say they will sue them both.

The WI and the Guides are about to find out the hard way that capitulating to hate is not productive. The Good Law Project say they will sue. Watch this space.

It won't stop them being sued by the Good Law Project. What's sauce for the goose...

It's not going to stop them getting sued by the Good Law Project.

The Good Law Project have said they will sue them.

Well sadly for the WI and the Guides, the Good Law Project just announced they will be suing them, so this is not a win for them if they thought they would avolid litigation.

Well if the WI and the Guides were afraid they would be sued by anti-trans organisation 'Sex Matters', they should know they are definitely going to be sued by the Good Law Project.

If the case involves serious and irreversible harm (e.g., fundamental rights violations), applicants can request Rule 39 interim measures. There is also a priority list under Rule 41, where cases are examined faster than normal applications.
Have you thought of requesting these approaches?

First toilets, then the Guides, now the Womens' Institute.
The ECHR has a special mechanism called “priority treatment” or “interim measures” for urgent cases.

First toilets, then the Guides, now the Womens' Institute.

The ECHR has a special mechanism called “priority treatment” or “interim measures” for urgent cases. Why is the Good Law Project not taking this route to contest the SC decision on trans people despite accelerating marginalisation of trans people in British society?

Clearly they are invested in making the lives of trans girls as horrible as possible.

Are they now going to introduce a new badge; "Advanced bigotry"?

What is not being said is that he now has a criminal conviction which could leas to international travel difficulties.

You're missing the small matter of him getting a criminal conviction for destroying her phone.

There is no fixed statutory deadline—follow‑up can range from months to years depending on the complexity of reforms required and the government’s responsiveness.

This means that once a submission is made, it will be scheduled for consideration at the next quarterly meeting. After the hearing, the Committee may issue interim resolutions or directives quickly (within that same meeting or the next one), but the timing depends on the seriousness of the case.

This is theoretically much faster than bringing a new case to the ECtHR.
Allegations of non‑compliance with a European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) judgment are reviewed by the Committee of Ministers at one of its dedicated “Human Rights (DH) meetings,” which take place four times per year.

Why are Stonewall not joining in with these submissions to GANHRI?

This needs emphasising again and again. The law is still the law and there are criminal sanctions for disclosure.

Why has Stonewall not supported this submission?

I keep bashing on about section 22 which will make any provider insisting on a new loo for a trans person, legally liable and with the possibility of a criminal conviction, but hardly anyone seems to know this.

"The Court has found above, under Article 8 of the Convention, that a test of congruent biological factors can no longer be decisive in denying legal recognition to the change of gender of a post-operative transsexual."

This was one of the findings by the European Court in the case of Godwin. It directly contradicts the Supreme Court decision that biological sex is paramount:

Then as you are not a trans woman, your musings on trans women are not valid.

Which is why the term 'transsexual' is needed now more than ever. You have to ask whose interests are served by insisting this term cannot be used.

They won't mention trans people. They think it's toxic.

What the British truly think:
Trump lacks certain qualities which the British traditionally esteem. For instance, he has no class, no charm, no coolness, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honour and no grace."