
I don't know exactly the answer and lament the terrible ruling, however I suspect that it's a case of the judges interpreting the law as written. It's important to consider this: the judges are *not* being asked whether or not men can be women. They are being asked if whether or not a man with a different gender identity is discriminated against according to the law as written.
It's an important distinction as the court isn't asking people to use their eyes, common sense or even whatever their personal ideologies/beliefs are. Rather, it seems they interpreted the law to this ruling. The issue may be that the law needs changing.
English

































