This was a vicious, brutal attack. Perpetrated by a man who was drunk and had a criminal record even before this. He broke several bones in the victim's face, requiring surgery, and even fractured the skull.
This is a kind of attack that's commonplace and has been for thousands of years - violent males attacking other males they perceive to be a danger to their women or believe to have trespassed against them. This is the kind of male violence feminists have sought to highlight and prevent for decades, by teaching boys not to use violence and aggression to resolve their issues. Can't help thinking it also smacks of defending one's woman as one's personal property - the victim hadn't actually done anything and clearly presented no danger to the wife when the attack happened, so this was punishment, not (self)defence. No one deserves this, especially not for using an opposite-sex facility, whether lawfully or not.
As for the hate crime question: The perp's wife had complained to her husband that a man had followed her into the ladies, which had made her feel uncomfortable. The perp then sought out and attacked the victim - afterwards and outside the toilets. That's as much detail as the media reports have given. We don't know what words husband and wife used when discussing this or if they have a relevant history.
We don't know whether the perp shouted specific or general insults during the attack or if he shouted any at all (this is one way to ascertain if hate is an aggravating factor under UK law). We don't know whether the law in Oregon requires specific behaviours to mark a hate crime. I don't think we need any of that to conclude that hate was a factor here given the horrific injuries suffered by the victim.
Deciding whether this is a hate crime motivated by transphobia depends on information we don't have. However, the jury at the trial presumably had that information and decided it met the threshold. That's good enough for me.