It falls foul of the no true scotsman fallacy because it starts with an idea and creates the definition around it, rather than starting with a definition and seeing if the idea fits. As I explained on another thread, if you have an absolute this creates a category, anything that violates the absolute cannot be part of the category. An orthodox shul is, by absolute definition, a place of worship according the religious beliefs of orthodox jewry. As a cross is, by absolute definition, a violation of said (it being the symbol of a religion whose beliefs are contrary to orthodox judaism), any place of worship with one in cannot be an orthodox shul. If a halachic case can be made for no mechitza this would mean that no mechitza is not a violation of the orthodox category (as it complies with the absolute, I.e. conforming to halacha). To start with the idea that mechitza creates the definition therefore falls foul of the ‘no true scotsman’ fallacy. A normative definition has to have a basis, it cannot be arbitrary. You are being arbitrary in your definition. Why should a mechitza define an orthodox shul any more than a bima?
Menu