"The defendants cannot expect that [this athlete] will countermand her social transition, her medical treatment, and all the work she has done with her schools, teachers, and coaches for nearly half her life by introducing herself to teammates, coaches, and even opponents as a boy," Judge Toby Heytens wrote in his decision

Judge is actually using a sunk cost fallacy in his ruling.

It's important to note that this ruling does not impact the West Virginia law – it only applies to the individual in this particular case, since the individual began transitioning in third grade, prior to hitting puberty. However, the ruling does potentially pave the way for other, similar cases.

Again, using sunk cost fallacy to create an exemption and since when can you make a ruling for a single person? This is like saying "well this person has been robbing banks for half his life so you can't expect him to give back the money now."