That's interesting. Did they talk about what sort of arguments she would make?
Conceptually, yes, GI beliefs are not WORIADS but I wonder how you would specifically make that point?
Perhaps on the basis that GI beliefs provide a detriment to all women through allowing men to access their spaces and also removes women from being a sex class on our own and just becoming part of a wider "gender" class.
Secondly, the effects it has on gay and lesbian people in denying their same sex attraction.
But would this be enough in court to reach the bar of not being WORIADS?
In the Forstater case, the EAT said:
In our judgment, it is important that in applying Grainger V, Tribunals bear in mind that it is only those beliefs that would be an affront to Convention principles in a manner akin to that of pursuing totalitarianism, or advocating Nazism, or espousing violence and hatred in the gravest of forms, that should be capable of being not worthy of respect in a democratic society. Beliefs that are offensive, shocking or even disturbing to others, and which fall into the less grave forms of hate speech would not be excluded from the protection. However, the manifestation of such beliefs may, depending on circumstances, justifiably be restricted under Article 9(2) or Article 10(2) as the case may be.
Although I guess that you could make an argument for GI beliefs being akin to totalitarianism.