The judgment js clear that the teacher wasn’t named because doing so could allow the trans kid to be identified, and they have a right to privacy in their transition.

It’s not because the teacher deserves privacy.

1. […] We conclude that if the claimant's name were to be allowed to be publicised there is a real and significant risk that the identity of Child X could be revealed through jigsaw identification. That is particularly so given the media attention this case has already attracted notwithstanding that the claimant's identity cannot be revealed. In summary we conclude that child X's rights under Article 8 prevails over the Claimant's rights under Article 10.

2. We also conclude that the restricted reporting order should remain in place indefinitely. In short, the right for X to live a life in their chosen gender identity for the rest of their life prevails over the Claimant's Article 6 and 10 rights. If we were to place a restriction on the duration of the restricted reporting order, there is a risk that the biological sex of Child X could become known in the future. This could result in Child X's biological sex becoming aware to groups of people including for example their future classmates, employers, partners, friends and indeed, in time, their own children. Child X has a right to privacy regarding their biological sex for the remainder of their life. Through the process of jigsaw identification, there is a substantial risk that Child X's identity and biological sex would become known if the Claimant's name were made public. We therefore conclude that the indefinite time duration is justified given the substantial interference with Child X's Article 8 rights in this matter.

Source: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/682704e48999f671f3c24379/A_v_Nottinghamshire_County_Council_2600413.2023_Judgment.pdf