Skimming the judgment now assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60c1cce1d3bf7f4bd9814e39/Maya_Forstater_v_CGD_Europe_and_others_UKEAT0105_20_JOJ.pdf.
Key parapraph:
"Mr Cooper submits that, although, as held by the House of Lords in in R (Williamson) V Secretary of State for Education and Employment [2005] 2 AC 246, it is not for the Court to inquire into the validity of a belief, the Tribunal did just that, including by taking the view that the Claimant’s beliefs were not supported by scientific evidence. What it ought to have done, submits Mr Cooper, is to consider whether the Claimant’s belief was of the kind that would make Article 17, ECHR relevant. Had the Tribunal taken that approach, it could only have concluded that the belief was worthy of respect in a democratic society. Not only is it worthy of respect, but it is also one that is consistent with the common law under which sex is regarded as binary and fixed at birth for the purposes of all legal provisions which make a distinction between men and women: see Corbett v Corbett [1971] P 83, Chief Constable of West Yorkshire v A (No.2) [2005] 1 AC 51 HL at [30]. The coming into force of s.9, GRA, under which a person with a Gender Recognition Certificate (“GRC”) “becomes for all purposes” the acquired gender, does not, as the Tribunal appears to have found, require the Claimant to disregard what she considers to be a material reality, namely that sex is immutable."