Trigger warning: Alpine data corroborating a dissenting view, feel free to delete my comment and go on with your day without upset. Does not feature a string of insults, in contrast to your preferred way of arguing. You responded to me (disrespectfully), so I am allowed to respond to you. (By the way, if you really can’t stand to hear a dissenting view, you can just block or mute those replying to you, instead of writing to and following them.)
I think you grossly misinterpreted what was said to be able to indulge in self-righteous outrage and name-calling; transwomen aren’t of more risk to women than non-transgender men, it’s just that the risk is the same, so naturally their treatment would be the same as regards women’s protected spaces:
“Second, regarding any crime, male-to-females had a significantly increased risk for crime compared to female controls (aHR 6.6; 95% CI 4.1–10.8) but not compared to males (aHR 0.8; 95% CI 0.5–1.2). This indicates that they retained a male pattern regarding criminality. The same was true regarding violent crime.” [includes sex offending] https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885 This strongly suggests biological men would be of similar risk to women (their most common target) regardless of gender identity, on average as a group. How is this controversial? Not more of a risk, but not less. Are we forbidden from pointing out the commonalities of two groups of people who share a biology and socialisation? (Unless you think such data is “sexist” against all men in general, or something? And you believe men’s associated risk of offending is identical to women’s? Or you don’t understand we’re talking averages and do not mean every single individual?)
A super simple solution that would also serve to protect transwomen who would otherwise have to use male bathrooms is single stall bathrooms; sports is solved with a larger number of physical eligibility categories which don’t reference sex or gender as it’s conflated with, and as for prisons, this means special provisions within so that such people don’t have to deal with gen. pop. A nuanced, case-by-case approach — what’s wrong with that? Treating people as though they were identical is not truly in the spirit of equality. Let’s aim for equity, which “has the goal of providing everyone with the full range of opportunities and benefits”, in this case balancing the safety (from male humans) and validation of a small group of people with the safety (from male humans) of a group of billions, instead of privileging the former regardless of cost to the latter.
People aren’t speaking out much on these kinds of forums because it just gets knee-jerk reactions like “terf/merf”, “filthy”, “foul”, “evil”, “bigoted”, “monster” (what’s next, threats?) — which is deeply disappointing and tedious. Social media’s not generally a place serious discussions happens, it’s an echo chamber where free speech is discouraged. It’s just ‘get that data away from me’ whilst at the same time pretending that the data doesn’t exist because it’s inconvenient. People disagreeing with you on the internet aren’t hurting you, or anyone — relax. The best way of disagreeing with someone is to furnish them with evidence (random opinion pieces don’t count) that proves your point, i.e. that there’s no risk or that it is ameliorated by internal sense of identity. To a reasonable person that type of thing is convincing.
And again, sex-segregated spaces would be open to all men (a much larger group than transwomen), because if it’s just based on self-ID there are no restrictions, and women’s bathrooms/changing rooms, prisons and sports are just an invocation away, whether based on a genuinely felt identity or not, unless things are restructured in the way I’ve outlined above. (But I don’t know, maybe you’re a MRA and don’t want women to have their own rape crisis centres etc. in general because you believe it’s discriminatory?) I’m hoping that if you were to understand the logic behind such spaces (why they exist, how hard won they were) you would give a care to half of humanity, instead of treating them as sacrificial lambs in your quest to look super inclusive and enlightened, which might be impressive in your social circle, hollow as it is.
In the future, I’ll refrain from responding to your comments on a public forum if it causes you such consternation to hear anything you dislike. But I did think you might be interested in someone “shouting from the mountains” data you’re certain doesn’t exist (and there’s more). Use this new evidence to update your worldviews and opinions on matters of public policy, or choose to ignore it — the choice is yours. You’re allowed any opinion you want.