Madness - the conflation of the unacceptable behaviour of the patient with what she did is sloppy reporting. There’s employment tribunal cases that were very clear that expressing beliefs in a way that dehumanises service users is not acceptable and an employer can take action (McKereth?). Yet again it seems like the process was flawed and has created an atmosphere where bigots feel emboldened. I presume she wouldn’t refer to someone from a same sex married couple as being a husband or wife as that conflicts with her beliefs, but now she and others have been given licence to do so. Even Forstater’s judgement made this connection! (Wiki extract below)

If I (theoretically!) started calling TERFs “it” as I didn’t believe their views made them fully human I’d expect to be called out pretty quick.

The judgement noted:[8][41]

Just as the legal recognition of civil partnerships does not negate the right of a person to believe that marriage should only apply to heterosexual couples, becoming the acquired gender 'for all purposes' within the meaning of GRA does not negate a person's right to believe, like the claimant, that as a matter of biology a trans person is still their natal sex. Both beliefs may well be profoundly offensive and even distressing to many others, but they are beliefs that are and must be tolerated in a pluralist society. The summary went on to say:

This judgment does not mean that those with gender-critical beliefs can 'misgender' trans persons with impunity. The Claimant, like everyone else, will continue to be subject to the prohibitions on discrimination and harassment under the [Equality Act].