Claim 1: That it's unfair for TW to go in men's toilets because they're less safe there.
It's probably true that they're less safe there, but how does the conclusion follow? What about a gender-nonconforming male who identifies as a man (not as a woman)? He would still have to go into the gents' even if admission to toilets was on the basis of gender identity. Should he also go to the ladies' to be safe? What about various other vulnerable groups? Young boys, elderly men who may be frail without being disabled, or ethnic minority males in an area where a white racist movement is strong - maybe they would all be safer in the ladies'? But it doesn't mean that's the answer!
Claim 2: That there is no use banning self-identified TW from the ladies' on the basis they might represent a risk, because genuinely dangerous males won't care whether they're allowed in or not.
This implies that the ladies' toilet is no safer than the gents', and therefore it completely contradicts the first point!
Claim 3: That having rules about who can and can't enter the toilets will lead to a surge in TM and others being wrongly accused of being in the wrong toilets.
But even under the EHRC's and Scottish government's understanding of the law, there were theoretical limitations on who could enter which toilets (in theory you would have needed a GRC). So there have always been rules about who can enter. Does anyone recall a huge problem of false accusations before 2010 or before 2004? If not, why should it start now?