[nomadking]

Has anybody else looked at the actual judgment?
The starting point of the arguments is those that claim "female" and "woman" mean the SAME thing. So when the Equality Act 2010 says "woman" means a female of any age, they claimed it applies to any declared female. The court decision states that in that context "female" means "biological female", as the Act was trying to include girls, who are not yet classed as women.
So either the term "female" is context-specific or you cannot change to being female. Which is it?
If it's not context-specific then somebody can't declare themselves "female", unless they are biologically female. That's not going to do down well with certain groups.