@Etak123
There are many ways the arguments from the complaints' side mirror trans ideology; they're so similar I can't help but think they're related.
In this case, the complainants argue that the host is responsible for their feelings and should have changed her behaviour to prevent offence (she should have clarified on her Airbnb listing that she was disabled to protect their feelings). Similarly, the transgender movement seeks recognition and protection from the state through intervention to regulate the behaviour of those outside the identity group. Either it is reasonable to demand restrictions on free expression to prevent offence, or it isn't. What's good for trans ideology is also good for the complainants.
The transgender movement also subscribes to a postmodern hierarchy of truth, where feelings and thoughts 'in here' are more real, true and important than physical things 'out there'. Similarly, the complainants argue that the host's feelings are less important than theirs since the host appeals to a protected characteristic rooted in biological reality, which matters less than their self-identified reality.
The complainants appear to be asking for the Equality Act to be amended to reflect that self-id is more important than biological reality. That is, to have it written in that their feelings trump the disabled host's right not to be discriminated against, which is exactly what the trans movement argues in regard to sex-based rights.
I think this is a way to demonstrate the absurdity of trans ideology without mentioning the word 'trans', which has the propensity to switch off reason in otherwise reasonable people. If a judgement is given, it is highly likely to contradict trans ideology and help support biology-based rights and freedom of expression elsewhere.