While it's important to defend our right to hold gender critical beliefs, to me this case is significant because of something else - the need (the right) to correctly sex a patient.
In some cases a patient's sex is irrelevant. In other cases it's crucial. The priority of staff is to care for patients and HC workers shouldn't fear repercussions of correctly sexing patients when it matters.
Jennifer was doing her job. If my memory serves me, the patient was in hospital because of a urine infection. The infection must have been serious for a dangerous prisoner to have to be taken to hospital. My understanding is that Jennifer was on the phone to a doctor, explaining the situation, and describing the patient as "he". In this case it was essential for the patient's care that all staff be clear about his sex. This is part of what makes this case egregious.
In a normal world Jennifer's union would have been all over this case like a rash - not only because of the above but because she was racially abused, all while dealing with a violent pedophile FGS