I don't know what point you think you are making but this, from the summary, could not be any clearer:
The Supreme Court unanimously allows the appeal. It holds that the terms “man”, “woman” and “sex” in the EA 2010 refer to biological sex. Lord Hodge, Lady Rose and Lady Simler give a joint judgment, with which the other Justices agree.
(BTW, I counted 11 uses of the word 'man' in that summary)
The point I was making to the pp was that we are not in this situation because of people 'complaining about toilets'. The judgment secures all our sex based rights as laid out in the EA. Not just toilets but changing rooms, hospital wards, hostel accommodation, refuges, prisons, same sex care, single sex associations, equality monitoring, positive action, as well as suitable comparators for discrimination cases. It also secures the rights of those with the PCs of sexual orientation and pregnancy and maternity.
Do you honestly think we would have collectively raised thousands and thousands of pounds and supported these fearless women through a legal battle lasting seven years, all the way up to the supreme court, if this was only about equality monitoring on public boards in Scotland? Or only about toilets? Do you think we are stupid?
Perhaps that pp would prefer the judgment to have said:
The Supreme Court unanimously allows the appeal. It holds that the terms “man”, “woman” and “sex” in the EA 2010 refer to biological sex. Except for toilets. Do what you want all the time regarding toilets.
Or perhaps she doesn't care about any of those other rights either.