Certainly some of the local TW are huge, well over six foot, one in particular is often high, and they are people you'd get out of the way of fast because of being well known of shouting a whole lot of abuse at any perceived provocation. No, I don't think anyone could reasonably think they'd be 'vulnerable' in a male toilet or changing room, I suspect other men would be wary of them, but better wary than the fucking terrifying that women would find them in an enclosed space. I also think they'd be less likely to tip from aggressive shouting to actual violence with men who might retaliate. The mini skirts don't reduce the size, the strength and the very male attitudes and aggression. Even if they were tiny little sweet and harmless flowers, why should women have to endure that, plus the loss of dignity and privacy and ability to be apart from men when undressed, just because the male's emotional needs matter and apparently female ones don't?
If this is going to be Labour's approach to women's spaces and resources then they're going to find fast that it doesn't work. Nandy seems to be trying out a sweet, kind, 'well people CAN opt out and create female only if they want to, or force females to subordinate themselves and hand over their resources to males if they want to' as if it's all lovely free choice. Which completely steps away from all responsibility and happily identifies that the mad pressure on anything at all trying to use the EqA exceptions ensures only the bravest even try it.
In fact, this 'la la la la' fingers in ears while smiling approach just tacitly enables male dominance over women and the destruction of women's resources while not having to get dainty hands dirty or actually engage with it. It's taking a side without having the guts to own it.