it's about the SC ruling and the principle that single sex spaces should be segregated on the basis of biological sex.
Yes - and a fair bit of the judgement WAS about the SC ruling and this principle.
This bit 'about' the SC ruling was very bizarre:
"... the decision states "Such women may in practice choose to use female-only facilities in a way which does not in fact compromise the privacy and dignity of other women users..." "
But the original version of that line from the actual SC decision is very different, saying “trans women” rather than “women”, and going on to make an extremely significant point about men without GRCs (like Upton) not being entitled to access female spaces, which the tribunal judge didn’t just edit out but also ignored in terms of his actual decision:
"Although such trans women may in practice choose to use female-only facilities in a way which does not in fact compromise the privacy and dignity of other women users, the Scottish Ministers do not suggest that a trans woman without a GRC is legally entitled to do so".
Surely even our most pig-headed critics (and trans Reddit is surely one, and they do) agree that the initial quoted section has a completely different meaning (and words) to the quote directly from the SC decision?