I’m going to put forth my points respectfully and without name-calling. Please note that someone disagreeing with your reasoning for having gender (as you desire) rather than sex-based segregation (as is presently the case) is not the same as hating you, endangering you, or doing you violence.
Public policy necessitates taking into account the likely ramifications of proposed changes, and requires a balanced approach which weighs up the cost and benefits. It cannot privilege one group above another, particularly when doing so affects a disproportionate number of people. Placing your feelings above another person’s safety is unconscionable.
Both trans and cis women/men deserve fair treatment, which does not mean identical treatment. Rather, the approach should be tailored according to their differing characteristics and circumstances. (If the distinction between equity and equality is confusing, consider taxation: proportional taxation means everyone is taxed equally while progressive taxation means that you are taxed based on your income i.e. fairly and equitably.)
Do you understand the reasoning behind bathroom, prison or sports sex segregation? And how none of these reasons are affected in the slightest by gender-identity? Men who rape female bodies don’t care about their gender identity (apply to trans men in male prisons), nor do weights or the running track care about your feelings regarding gender. These are circumstances where only sex matters.
Women’s only bathrooms reduce their risk of sexual assault by people with the following characteristics: a male body, opposite sex attraction, and male socialialsation. That might be sexist —the majority of such people wouldn’t dream of doing such a thing — however it minimises risk of harm in a world where many do. Such people are more likely to act upon their sense of sexual entitlement to female bodies, with the ease granted to them due to superior physical strength (the top 10% of women being only as strong as the bottom 10% of men).
Natal women’s only spaces are not about reinforcing feelings of group membership nor validating gender-identity, and never have been. It’s about minimising their risk of sexual assault. The changes to the law you desire will severely undermine the safety of half of humanity. You profess to belong to this group, yet you seem to care about only a tiny proportion of its members.
If you are concerned about trans women’s safety and not merely their feelings, would single-occupancy unisex bathrooms or a third type of public bathroom suit your purposes? Wouldn’t this ensure the safety of both cis and trans women?
If you wish to use the women’s bathroom— being that that’s how you choose to present to society and you feel it’s much safer for you than the men’s lavatory— you should. You absolutely should, until single-occupancy bathrooms become the norm. Nothing is stopping you, as you resemble a natal woman neither the security guards watching the doors on CCTV, nor your comically invoked bathroom-stationed crotch-inspectors would think to stop you.
However, enshrining this in law will give any male bodied person access to every female facility solely on the basis of self-reported feelings and self-identification whereas hitherto this was done on the basis of sex. Girls and women experience epidemic levels of sexual assault on this basis rather than mutable gender stereotypes e.g. wearing pink dresses (little boys used to wear dresses; pink used to signify masculine “vitality”, while blue was a feminine colour, thought to symbolise “purity”).
Gender is the social overlay to biological sex, it’s the way people are instructed and encouraged to act as help-meets or leaders on the basis of this classification. It is not the cause of the pain and loss of opportunity suffered by natal girls and women all over the world — sex is. Being shunned due to periods, fistulas, or being disproportionately targeted for rape, these are the result of having a female body in a world which still struggles to safeguard women. There is no rhetoric or ideology that can change this sad reality.
Many transgender people report being sexually assaulted (e.g. 12% of transgender youth), but this is a group that includes biological women (Holy conflation, Batman!). Transgender people are of course assaulted primarily by those with male bodies and socialisation, this is true for every victim of sexual assault even cis men. It underscores why such people (the majority of whom are only attracted to female bodies) are not allowed in women’s bathrooms, rape crisis centers, or prisons.
If trans women (even without surgery or on hormones) are just as at risk as natal women of sexual assault in men’s bathrooms, I support single-occupancy bathrooms to reduce this risk while still safeguarding the safety of millions of girls and women.
People who do not conform to gender expectations (“effeminate” men, trans women) often experience physical assault on this basis. Again, the solution is single-occupancy unisex bathrooms or a third type of bathroom, rather than opening up women’s spaces to biological men. Yes, it’s “hurtful” to the male sex and to trans women, however you cannot prioritise feelings over safety, that would be unreasonable.
As for sports, they’re sex (not gender) segregated as it would not be fair (or safe in the case of contact sports — the punching power of men is 2.6x that of bio women, who have much lower bone density and smaller skulls) for people with substantially greater muscle mass, bone density, lung capacity, heart-size, and having a different skeleton and muscle composition (more fast twitch muscles) to compete against natal women. Female athletes will be (are already) grievously injured and excluded from women’s sports due to their biology. (That always seems to be the factor that does women in…)
Gender identity or enacting the stereotypes associated with the sexes do not erase sex-based physiological differences. Nor does HRT after undergoing male puberty; following 12 months on cross-sex hormones there is only a 5% reduction in muscle mass with no loss of functional strength. And as you said yourself, HRT does not impact bone size or density.
I don’t know about the long term effects of HRT, if it’s true that trans women are actually much weaker than natal women as a result, then it would make sense to create a third sporting league in which they could safely and fairly compete. Would it not?