It's funny how you all opposte things without realizing that the arguments you are trying to make are copy/paste from the 90's that were made in support of Section 28, which was strong ban on gays, lesbians, intersex and transgender people. Literally people were "not comfortable" with having gays and lesbians in their bathrooms.
And all of this was settled, over 20 years ago, if you dare to actually read some law, indulge me in this little quote that addresses your issue:
"""
The Court does not underestimate the difficulties posed or the important repercussions which any major change in the system will inevitably have, not only in the field of birth registration, but also in the areas of access to records, family law, affiliation, inheritance, criminal justice, employment, social security and insurance. However, as is made clear by the report of the Interdepartmental Working Group, these problems are far from insuperable, to the extent that the Working Group felt able to propose as one of the options full legal recognition of the new gender, subject to certain criteria and procedures. As Lord Justice Thorpe observed in the Bellinger case, any “spectral difficulties”, particularly in the field of family law, are both manageable and acceptable if confined to the case of fully achieved and post-operative transsexuals. Nor is the Court convinced by arguments that allowing the applicant to fall under the rules applicable to women, which would also change the date of eligibility for her state pension, would cause any injustice to others in the national insurance and state pension systems as alleged by the Government. No concrete or substantial hardship or detriment to the public interest has indeed been demonstrated as likely to flow from any change to the status of transsexuals and, as regards other possible consequences, the Court considers that society may reasonably be expected to tolerate a certain inconvenience to enable individuals to live in dignity and worth in accordance with the sexual identity chosen by them at great personal cost.
"""
This is still valid and applicable law, one that now will have to be tried against FWS to see what the law actually is. But that's level of consideration this echo chamber hates, as for them "it's all so clear", a position not held by any actual legal scholar. Even EHRC already had to retract half of it's guidance as, by it's own counsel, they got the law wrong.
You lot have been lied to, I'm sorry to say, especially about FWS being "clear" or it banning bathrooms.