This makes sense (from a fellow layman's legal perspective), thank you.
It'll certainly do as a reasonable assumption until someone with some actual legal knowledge comes along! No offence intended BTW... I count myself in this too 😁
So, building on that:
a) DU's belief carries no more weight than any other belief that hasn't got a court ruling on its WORIADS status e.g. flat earth belief
b) all beliefs (including WORIADS) are subject to the Nolan Principles in public office. Objectivity being one such principle. So presumably the distinction would be that someone who holds a WORIADS belief should objectively be allowed to practice their own belief as long as it doesn't have a detrimental impact on others e.g. no public body should force all women to wear hijabs just because some men/women believe that women should do this
c) where a belief is not WORIADS, nobody should expect an accommodation to be made for their belief, managed as a serious request through a neutral, non-judgemental process e.g. flat earthers can't tie up government funds to evaluate shipping lane safety to stop boats falling off the planet, gender identity believers can't waste public funds processing complaints that others won't validate their belief.... including in courts.
Gender identity belief falls down on point b as well, even if it's a WORIADS belief. But it's a shocking waste of public funds if it's not already got legal status as such and it's not yet been tested in law. I hope this court case seeks to answer this question 🤞🤞