Jesus suffering Christ (& all the angels, saints, & men & women of God you can shake a bishop’s crook at, frankly).
The judge said the evidence did not establish Tickle was excluded from Giggle directly “by reason of her gender identity although it remains possible that this was the real but unproven reason”.
Rather, the indirect discrimination case succeeded because Tickle was excluded from the use of the social media app “because she did not look sufficiently female”.
I could honestly weep.
Your one was excluded for being male. As simple as that. Nothing to do with their “gender identity” - they could have any GI under the sun - & everything to do with the fact that humans cannot change sex. Various countries have allowed the absurdity of the fiction of a “legal sex”; & have allowed people to create forms of ID stating they are members of the opposite sex. Those absurd - immoral, even - laws have not made humans able to change sex. Males with birth certificates, passports, NHS numbers & driving licences identifying them as female are still male. Just males in a position of power & privilege; with whom the State is colluding in a lie; & who exercise their male privilege every time they enter a space that is meant to be reserved for women - either without considering those women & their needs, or deciding their selfish desires are paramount.
The judge’s conclusion is patently absurd & ripe for the disproving: just for a start how many “butch”/otherwise “unfeminine” users do we imagine Giggle has? I’m fairly sure women would happily sign up in their least “feminine” looks purely to disprove that twaddle. Then who is to say what gender ID people hold? The closest thing a TERF-type would have to one is being agender, after all. So clearly Giggle is open to a range of gender IDs as well as levels of [performing] femininity. It’s just, as Ms Grover has argued throughout, not open to members of the male sex. However they may identify; & however the law may try to redefine “sex” into something meaningless.