Just came over here from the SP thread.
What they’re saying here is technically true, from what I can see.
The first point relates to the ‘primary case’ (fairness of competition)
Their point is that the judge agrees the burden of proof of showing that exclusion was ‘necessary’ would have fallen on the defendant.
But what this statement fails to mention is that the judgment then goes in to say that the defendant would have met/proven it:
There is no reasonable alternative way of achieving fair competition short of exclusion
So irrelevant really.
The second point relates to the secondary claim (encouraging greater female participation)
The judgement seems to be saying that while this is a legitimate aim, excluding trans women is not a ‘proportionate’ way to achieve it.
So that’s a bit shit.