I have been involved in discussions like this for over a decade, and in the last few years conversations with genderists (those who believe identifying as women or men should confer the opposite sex rights to them) always go a certain way.
Females say we don’t want males in our spaces, sports, awards etc, and give a multitude of reasons why, including offering endless evidence that males pose a physical threat to females, and suggest males uncomfortable using male spaces or competing against other males campaign for their own third spaces, events, awards etc.
Genderists then argue a subset of males have been using female spaces for years with no problems, and females are just being alarmists if we say we want female spaces for reasons of safety. Genderists deny all the evidence of the incidences that are provided to them, which show males have committed crimes against women in female only spaces, and deny that a subset of males (who identify as women) pose the same risk to females as any other male. Interestingly, genderists cannot provide any evidence that this subset of males are less of a risk to females than any other male. Instead genderists expect us to accept their belief that when a male claims he is a woman, he somehow acquires a female offending pattern, despite evidence suggesting males retain a male offending pattern after full genital surgery (let alone after simply identifying). Their line of argument shows that genderists rely solely on us accepting their ideology rather than any facts.
Genderists also claim if females succeed in retaining female only spaces we will be responsible for a subset of males being attacked in male spaces. Interestingly, despite genderists demand that females justify our need for safe spaces away from males, genderists do not seem able to produce any evidence that a subset of males are at an increased risk of being attacked in male spaces in the UK than any others males. They also refuse to campaign for third spaces for themselves, which would keep them safe away from males (if they really are at an increase risk in male spaces), and would not involve them violating female’s boundaries. Their argument here shows that they demand females justify our need for female only spaces, yet they cannot justify their own need for spaces away from other males, let alone why they should be permitted into female spaces rather than campaigning for their own third spaces. Also the implication that we are putting them at risk by not allowing them into our spaces is a form of emotional manipulation.
When females raise our right to privacy away from males, that is completely ignored by genderists. They seem to think a male’s desire to be in a female only space should trump female’s desire for privacy away from males, and females who object to a male’s presence should be overruled, as a male’s feeling should take priority. This shows the misogyny that has always been at the foundation of genderist ideology.
When females point out UK law allows female spaces that exclude males for reasons of safety, privacy and dignity genderists argue that it doesn’t. This seems to be genderists trying to gaslight and interpret the law the way they want it to be, rather than what it actually says, which is why they infiltrate various institutions etc, to try and dictate policy.
When all the above arguments fail genderists resort to arguing that retaining female only spaces will result in males being able to discriminate against females in other areas. This is a totally nonsense argument and is really grasping at straws, they are trying to convince us that if we give a subset of males access to our spaces we won’t be penalised in other ways by other males. It really is obvious that genderists will try any tactic to get what they want.
It has been clear for many years that genderists believe that the law should not grant females the right exclude all males from our spaces; they believe that feelings of a subset of males should be permitted to overrule female’s right to female only spaces. When a male (or a group of males) continually demand entrance to female spaces, when females have already said we don’t want any males in our spaces, that male (or group of males) are showing himself (themselves) to be a serious danger to females, as he (they) will not take a female’s no for an answer. I see little point in arguing with genderists, other than to highlight to other women what genderists are aiming for; which of course is to strip females of our sex based rights, so that a subset of males can obtain entrance to our spaces, awards, sports etc. Males have to learn that females no means no! No amount of gaslighting, emotional manipulation, threats or pretence of civility will change that no! Male genderists need to accept that and campaign for their own spaces if they don’t want to share spaces with other males.