I agree generally with Ms. Yaniv that a person
who customarily offers women the service of waxing their arms or legs cannot discriminate between cisgender and transgender women absent a bona fide reasonable justification:
I hate to piss on the parade, but it reads to me like this judgement does not in fact allow women to say no to letting men into their homes. They're allowed to say no to a scrotum wax, if they don't know how to wax balls. They can't decline a man who asks for a leg wax if the man says he's transgender (and the Tribunal thought "evidence of masculine gender expression" was irrelevant to this case, so saying he's transgender is all it will take.)