“... but some women”

I tried to address this in my ‘critique my logic’ thread (on phone and can’t link, sorry’. Basically, if you accept the fact that men are more dangerous to women than women are, then self id leading to unisex spaces increases risk to women.

Other facts, such as ‘some women are also violent’ don’t change this. The risk is not being increased from zero to something, but from something to something bigger.

It is like a bikelane. A narrow bikelane. Sometimes horrific accidents happen, because some people riding their bike are just rowdies and don't stick to the rules, which include not going faster than 25 kilometers per hour. Some, however, have so much strength and are so reckless, they go 60 km/h downhill. Every couple of years someone might even die because these rowdies clash into them.

Now we open the bike lane to motorcycles, as long as the motorbikers promise to go only 25 km/h. Contrary to the bikers, the motorbikers are notorious rule breakers. But of course, not every motorbiker breaks the rules. The majority do not. But even when the motorbikers behave nicely, the bikers are now all scared shitless, stop and make place, when they see a motorbike. 'Cause you would not want to be in their way, when they go 200 km/h on this narrow bike lane.

Some women refuse cervical smears so we should just do away with them altogether?

Sometimes airbags / seatbelts fail. But we still keep them.

The house one works for quite a lot - burglers can smash windows to get around a locked door - but we still lock our doors don't we.