I agree the judge had reasons for being able to side step some obvious and important issues here, which is unfortunate as the case law is needed. Had this been a male born trans person approaching using no questionable behaviour and simply requesting an arm wax, (and of bringing only one case instead of a shopping list), then it would have had to be debated in much more detail. How would the women's religious and cultural issues with being alone with someone they (and their partners) perceive as male be balanced with the perceived injustice of someone who identifies as a woman not being treated the same as other women? How would the right of someone working alone from home to say no to any new client they are not comfortable with for whatever reason be balanced compared to the right of say, a large salon to say no to particular customers, when technically there is no difference between the body part in male or female clients? That would have been complicated and challenging to work through and would have got down to some of the fundamental issues going on here.
However in terms of legal precedent, a judge has noted and regarded a clear difference between gender identity and physical sex being applicable in some circumstances, which is important. Other people's needs, rights, own vulnerabilities and feelings were considered in equal balance - including the right of a woman to say no when the behaviour of the other person was evidenced as inappropriate. Other people's perceptions of male and female as a basis for their choices and feelings is also recognised as valid.
Yes, the judge escaped a few tricky situations there and managed for example to skirt entirely round whether sexually motivated behaviour may have been involved in Yaniv's actions.