How to respond to "oh there's always bad apples that ruin things for everyone" and "well women do that too" ?

I completely agree. I was just trying to figure out how I would have responded to that argument, and I think it would have been that-

Firstly, shopping centres are not single sex spaces where only women are vulnerable and need privacy, safety and dignity.

Secondly, terrorist attacks are carried out by men of all faiths or none, not just Muslims.
Therefore all men would have to be banned from shopping centres to prevent terrorist attacks, thus ironically rendering them single sex spaces

Thirdly, bomb/gun-carrying men in mixed-sex public places and men in single-sex female spaces are entirely different situations and arguments

I do sometimes get my arguments muddled up though so I'm happy to be corrected

If this is their argument then it follows it would apply to all men (not just TW).

Our argument is that all men (including TW) should be banned from women's single sex-spaces because a small number of men (including TW) pose a risk to women and also in order to maintain the dignity and privacy of women.

If someone is arguing that it is wrong to exclude an entire group because a small number of that group pose a risk then they must believe that all spaces should be mixed-sex. Why single out TW from that group of men? Why not gay men or boys who must also be at risk in male spaces? Must women take all those men/males who are at risk? Why this specific group of men?

I go with the “I agree, some people are assholes so why are we making rules that deliberately encourage these specific people to be assholes?” Or versions thereof.

“I agree that some sexual assaults were committed by determined men on a women’s hospital ward in the past, so why do we want to make it easier for them in the future by letting in MORE men?”

I read someone argue (unsure if it was on FWR) that banning all TW from single sex spaces (because a tiny minority have attacked women) would be the same as banning all Muslims from shopping centres (because a tiny minority have carried out terrorist attacks)

It was useful for that person to demonstrate their lack of thinking so publicly.

Other posters have already addressed the "banning TW" issue but I just want to say that anyone who has to invoke Muslims in shopping centres to make their pro-trans argument isn't worth listening to. The pro-trans argument needs to stand on its own.

But it’s not a tiny minority, Xylophone. Transwomen commit more sexual offences than other men, as Ministry of Justice statistics have shown. Those in prison are more likely than other men to have been convicted of sexual offences.

And it’s not only about physical violence. Men who go into women’s spaces are often there to commit indecent exposure (which actually still is a criminal offence), or to hide in a cubicle and masturbate while listening to women peeing. Their presence is intended to cause distress and prevent women having peaceful use of women’s facilities.

No one seeks to ban transwomen alone, but to ban all men from women’s spaces.

TW are male, with the same offending rates as all other males. They should be banned for reasons of safety, privacy and decency - the exact reasons why separate sex spaces are allowed under Equality law in the first place. TW who care about women use male spaces or lobby for a third space.

Its good but I really really wish they'd do a poll specifically about transwomen in female toilets. Because when those stats are posted as proof, people say but transwomen are women. So, in the end, those stats really don't do a single thing.

What we need is an actual question posed so that the answer is completely clear and unambiguous in the results. Something like; most transwomen retain their penis and testicles (whatever the figure is now): should a male person who identifies as a woman be able to use female toilets?

Whatever way its worded, it needs to state to the person being asked that transwomen are males with male genitals, SO..... in that case, should they be allowed entry in female only toilets/changerooms.

Most polls are about 'gender' neutral vs 'womens' toilets. I've yet to find a poll that I can actually use as evidence.

I read someone argue (unsure if it was on FWR) that banning all TW from single sex spaces (because a tiny minority have attacked women) would be the same as banning all Muslims from shopping centres (because a tiny minority have carried out terrorist attacks)

Oh stop all this hyperbole. You know you’re making it all up. No one is going to be erased. They will just have to stop forcing the rest of us to pretend we believe they have changed sex.

Up till the last few years men never expected to use women’s facilities, and life went on. Children weren’t medicalised, women were allowed privacy, and if men pretended to be female to win in women’s sports they would be disqualified for cheating.

You must know there are a lot of mentally fragile people currently being encouraged to imagine they can change sex, and this kind of irresponsible catastrophising about being ‘erased’ causes them a great deal of distress.

There's always a bad apple in every barrel

Yes that's why we keep men (including TW) out of women's changing rooms.
It's called safeguarding. One bad man (including TW) will cause harm to numerous women.
Just keep returning to the fact that TW are men.

All that sighing and speaking in soothing tones - OP I think I'd find her hard work even if she was agreeing with every word I said.
And I also rekon you're doing good.

I'm still for 'back to basics': transwomen are men. there are only two sexes, and you can't swap between them.

Even if all embryos WERE female [I used to think that's why men have nipples, but I was completely mistaken; but then again, I'm not a scientist🙄] they all come out either male or female - yes even the ones with DSDs like Caster Semenya who has a male DSD- so let's deal with life in women's toilets and M&S changing rooms rather than inside the womb..

Why would a biological male insist on using a designated women's space, which has been respected by men up to now, when he knows he's not welcome? Just - why?

Finally, here's a suggested 'I really don't want to engage much' reply, which refers to the shift in public, and to an extent political, attitude to genderwoo:

'...but does anybody really still believe all that sort of thing? really?..'

You could add 'Even Stonewall are changing their definitions now!'
but then you'd have to dedicate precious brain-time to reading their old and new definitions, so you might leave that last one out, Your Serene Maj

Unfortunately, there are gaps at the bottom that a smart phone can slip through. A Next I was in recently had curtains in their mixed sex changing room and no member of staff to keep an eye out.

My local M&S had curtains last time I went there (in the summer last year). Definitely no locking doors there at that time.

Just one fundamental correction, M & S don't have curtains in fitting rooms they have solid doors with locks . . .

keeping men out of women's spaces isn't just about avoiding the odd "bad apple" btu also about how girls/women feel when men are around and how much we want spaces where even if the men are all lovely, we don't have to deal with them, mostly when we feel vulnerable.

Exactly!
These are our spaces! They were set up for us!
We don't have to justify why we want them. I used to fall into the trap of doing that but I don't any more. Just "no" should be enough. Unfortunately it's not.

Men with special feelings don't get to take what they want all of the time just because they want it.

This is very much the attitude of BIL as well. In some ways its been helpful to me as it's helped me to further clarify my thinking and it's why I feel so strongly now that actually, keeping men out of women's spaces isn't just about avoiding the odd "bad apple" btu also about how girls/women feel when men are around and how much we want spaces where even if the men are all lovely, we don't have to deal with them, mostly when we feel vulnerable.

Men don't really understand this though. Dh works at a gym. I have suggested to him a few times that he suggest to management that they consider sessions in the spa for single sex - eg tuesday 10-11:30 is women only and thursday 10-11:30 is men only, especially as the gym has a fairly large number of muslim members. But he thinks that's not fair and why should anyone be excluded at certain times. At the spa at his gym I have never ever seen men behaving inappropriately so he thinks therefore that it's all fine. But he doesn't understand that for a lot of women, just being half naked around strange men is very vey uncomfortable.

The beauticians in Canada were sued by the abusive man. Poor, immigrant women, who were deliberatedly targeted by him, it was a win-win for him. He gets his fetish indulged, and his balls waxed, by unwilling women or he gets his jollies dragging them through the courts. These impoverished women only avoided losing and having to pay his costs and damages because the judged agreed they didn't have the know how to safely wax ball!

This is what twaw is. It's not a bad apple. It's women fighting in court to say 'no' to a male pervert. Before gender ideology he would have been arrested. Now he's the victim.

Cannot believe your friend is a scientist!!
Really- what kind of scientist spouts such carp?
Ask her to back up her claims- whilst presenting your research based arguments to back up the facts.
Definitely worth ‘learning’ facts and figures to give to her- hopefully she’ll be stunned and go and read up
(doubt it though)

Agree. But it's not the outliers, the main thrust (sorry!) of the TRA agenda is that women who won't give in and submit to admitting men as if they were women should be punished, either by losing their jobs etc or going through the courts over the matter, where the process is the punishment. If you read the Victoria Smith article cited ealier you will see that this is the case and also that the TRA agenda is an extension of the patriarchy.

Women are seen as 'support humans', when we won't support we are punished. (I have been watching a thread on sex after childbirth, where men's entitlement to sex coming before a woman's own needs comes shining through from the OP - not sure if I am supposed to reference this, so won't).

That looks a good answer to me, but I had a conversation a couple of weeks ago where I deployed the 'women wear trousers and are not men' view and was told it wasn't just clothes. Also deployed was the 'hormones for a year' argument that this will decrease male strength so it's ok to have TW in women's sports - I didn't get beyond 'it doesn't' on that one. Did not feel happy about this as I let myself go into shut down mode i.e. straight denial re hormones. A true believer does not listen to rational arguments.

Take her to many many places with unisex toilets buy her loads to drink and watch her squirm when she has to use them

I had to use unisex toilets during lockdown (the men's were under repair and it took forever "due to covid") the men in there kept trying to queue jump literally pushing themselves forward he set the hand dryers off at one point trying to move around me then he tried pushing his daughter infront of me my son (autistic) began squeaking and flapping at her because they were too damm close

Never again

I am incredibly lazy. Faced with this set of arguments, I would reply that I don't engage with stupidity, no matter how clever the enunciator is and, rather like a mass murderer in a lift, you are wrong on every level.