It's very difficult to say where the line is drawn or lines are drawn both actually and legally.
There are intersexed people. There's no doubt about it.
However, there are people who are not intersexed at all who mentally only think of themselves as other than what their non-intersexed biology says about them. There also those who think of themselves as intersexed also when their biology says they are not.
Of course, the question arises concerning where biology and mental states start and end. Aren't mental states biological in nature?
Nevertheless, the judge claiming that a non-intersexed woman, a non-trans woman, can be fired for believing that mental states are not biological is ludicrous. The biological versus mental/mind philosophical debate is as old as philosophy itself and is not a settled debate.
If we don't allow people to debate things that are still up in the air or even re-debate things that appear settled, we're being very, very stupid and shortsighted. After all, toeing the line is not how modern science was even formed and we don't even know where physics and spirit begin and end either.
The judge appears to be claiming to be omniscient.
What's a real woman, a person who is clearly not at all intersexed or the opposite of the person's biological markers, all of them, and only has a feeling of being in the wrong body? If so, why do we even use the prefix "trans"?
What is a person with all, and only, the traditional biological markers who doesn't have any such feelings?
Is the first not different from the second? Yes, and it's why the prefix.
Some people say "real men don't eat quiche." Are we going to fire them for it? I'm not, even though I don't agree with them.
Anyway, here's the article that spurred this post: A UK judge ruled that it is legal to fire workers for saying that transgender women are not real women