But it does play a part if the jurors lack critical context. If no one on the jury can understand how a victim of sexual assault could be frozen during an attack, they might fall into the trap of thinking things like "how could it have been rape if she never said 'no'?" or alternatively, they could cling to some things like a male victim being aroused and assume that means the act was consensual. One could argue that this could simply be explained by the prosecution via expert witness - but I think we all know the Dunning-Kruger effect well enough by now to understand how that won't work in all cases.

I don't know if we should (or even can) aim to have a victim included on any set of jurors, but removing them altogether seems like a very bad strategy.

I think it is up to the prosecutor and expert witnesses to deal with that. The presumption is that the defendant is innocent. If the prosecution can not make a convincing case to an impartial jury (not an expert jury), then the defendant goes free. It's not perfect, but it seems better than the alternatives.

I think this is a fantasy - jury trials are the reason why you have patent trolls in the US, they don't understand first thing about intellectual property, it's a total clown show. Such meritless lawsuits get throws out of court in EU with a proffeshional judge.

The jury has to have basic grasp of the situation so that they can decide who is lying and who is telling the truth (and witnesses called by prosecution do lie).

Imagine being tried on sex abuse by people who never had a relationship, or an employment dispute judged by people who never had a job. It would be disaster.