[mytailorisrich]

The clarification is important because there have been a lot of arguments and fear of being sued for exluding trans women from "women only" areas from changing rooms to sport and even gynecologists.

My understanding, reading the various reactions in the article, is that now it is fully legally safe to deny trans women access to the "women changing room", or to "womens" categories in sport, or to lesbian meeting places, etc.

[beeforpork]

Yes, I agree that that is a consequence. But before this judgement, the laws were ambiguous, which is arguable the worst that can happen with laws.

[stubish]

It certainly is arguable. The more unambiguous the law, the less room for common sense decisions. Now there is the situation where people who physically appear male but declared female at birth must use female facilities, by law. And cannot be excluded, per discrimination law. And possibly conflicts completely with religious persecution laws, depending on how religious leaders define girls and women when it comes to gender segregated facilities like hairdressers or swimming pools. And a judge no longer gets to make a common sense ruling based on who's wobbly bits were being flaunted in whom's face for what reason.