Good.
Because that's exactly how I'm reading it (not read the critic's take yet - supposed to be doing other things and have got distracted by this! Will take a good look later).
To be WORIADS it has to pass the test of not causing harm or being otherwise discriminatory under law. I think it's just failed that argument.
Remember that equality law is a balancing act, so you can say that if there is a legitimate aim to protect one group there are circumstances where it is acceptable to say to another group this isn't ok because this would give you a) an unfair advantage b) you aren't as vulnerable as this group in this particular circumstance c) there should perhaps be a work around / sensitively done reasonable adjustment to avoid situations of conflict between two groups.
There is no hierarchy in the equality act and this is crucial. The act works to prevent levels of harm in order of seriousness and then works down from that in terms of need. There are circumstances where one group may need another to be effectively discriminated against to prevent these serious harms. Harms are defined in terms of the seriousness of the issue AND the numbers effected.
The ruling makes the point that the problem here is making no distinction between male and female when providing services and that this is unacceptable in the setting because it is relevant. In order to be inclusive it should be providing the services but within boxed definitions relevant to service users in a way that service users understand and can freely consent to. Because they are the most vulnerable group in consideration and it's relevant to the service provided.
In other words inclusivity ISN'T just going gender neutral and saying sex is irrelevant. Because the law says sex is relevant in certain situations.