The whole thing is full of utterly illogical gibberish, and it doesn't seem to make any sense from a legal point of view either.
Just one example, which jumped out at me - the sections about Murray:
89. When in an, admittedly very bitter, dispute with Gregor Murray, who alleged that they had been misgendered by the Claimant, rather than seeking to accommodate Gregor Murrays legitimate wishes she stated: “I had simply forgotten that this man demands to be referred to by the plural pronouns “they” and “them”, “Murray also calls it “transphobic” that I recognise a man when I see one. I disagree”, “In reality Murray is a man. It is Murray’s right to believe that Murray is not a man, but Murray cannot compel others to believe this.” and that “I reserve the right to use the pronouns “he” and “him” to refer to male people. While I may choose to use alternative pronouns as a courtesy, no one has the right to compel others to make statements they do not believe.”
90. I conclude from this, and the totality of the evidence, that the Claimant is absolutist in her view of sex and it is a core component of her belief that she will refer to a person by the sex she considered appropriate even if it violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The approach is not worthy of respect in a democratic society.
This makes no sense to me, as the main points the judge seemed to be trying to make elsewhere were that if someone transitions and becomes legally the opposite "gender", it would be violating their dignity not to address them as such, etc. But as I understand it (please correct me if wrong!), Murray does not identify as a woman, nor have a GRC, but identifies as non-binary - which is not recognised in law. So presumably, in any legal sense (as well as biological), whether Murray likes it or not, it is correct to call Murray a man. I don't see how anyone could be justifiably forced to call Murray anything else just because M wants them to, or how a legal fact can be considered to violate someone's dignity? If this is one of the justifications for the ruling, it seems to me to be on very shaky ground.
(I also wonder how much the judge knew about Murray when ruling that it was a violation of M's dignity or "creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment" to describe Murray as what Murray legally is, as Murray seems no stranger to creating offensive environments for others)
www.eveningtelegraph.co.uk/fp/woman-who-received-abuse-from-dundee-councillor-gregor-murray-speaks-out/