"Misandry is the root of all trans fear. Men’s fear of other men. Women’s fear of all men."

And when is it justified for a man to be on say a women's ward? Or go in the female toilets? What exactly are those criteria?

As I said being in a state of undress is considered one of the justifiable reasons for special exemption so its depends if the context calls for it.

And what if women (or men) just want a single sex group? Should that be banned, even though there are plenty of places where both men and women are welcome?

I imagine it depends whether its a social group or a service. I doubt it applies to social groups but services available to the public are a different matter.

They fundamentally don’t believe the idea that a person can truly feel or be anything other than their sex assigned at birth.

I wonder if it's ever occurred to that writer that they are expecting a woman to predicate her entire reality and perceptions obediently on what that man says is happening inside his head.

And not seeing anything wrong with that.

They are twisting themselves into knots because some of the observances are real- for example this post

"I reckon several things are going on. People know abuse of all sorts goes on: rape, sexual, physical and mental abuse etc, to both women and men, young and old.. The figures are shocking: unless we live in a cupboard, we will all know a victim.

But the person committing such acts cannot be my mate at work; cannot be my golfing partner; cannot be that lunching lady. We're awesome, and no-one we know can be bad. So when my friend's wife appears with a black eye, I accept that she walked into a brick column without question"

This is completely reasonable but the poster uses this as a way of putting them back into the victim mindset

"Therefore the abuse must be caused by an out-group; preferably one I don't know any member of. For many, the outgroup seems to be ethnic minorities.
But many middle-class people can't blame ethnic minorities, as that would be racist.

No, there needs to be another outgroup, preferably one they feel is a bit weird. And I'm sad to say that it appears trans people are that target for many.
(I'm a middle-aged CIS male, if that matters.)"

At no point have any of the posters established that

a) all men over the age of 13 are stronger than women- inclusive of transwomen.

b) most assaults happen to women for sexual purposes rather than to maime or kill like for men.

c) women are most at risk from men in private spaces as oppose to public and that risk increases when women are removing their clothes.

And when is it justified for a man to be on say a women's ward? Or go in the female toilets? What exactly are those criteria?
And what if women (or men) just want a single sex group? Should that be banned, even though there are plenty of places where both men and women are welcome?

I love how so often they nearly come close to getting it then make a dramatic swerve to avoid the existential discomfort of that.
Otherwise I see the usual paranoid conspiracy bleating about how the media is inherently transphobic and it’s all been paid for by various standard bogeymen. It’s rare, but not unknown, for someone inside the house to point out that a lot of the reason the ‘tide is turning against them’ is almost entirely self inflicted (which never goes down well at all). You wanted greater visibility? Well, you got it, and people don’t like a lot of what they’re seeing. Seems like a you problem. A wide ranging extension to the old ‘All my ex wives are bitches’.

So you are saying that neither men nor women can have the right to single sex groups? Why not?

I never said that. On the contrary I made it clear that if the legal exemption criteria is met single sex spaces are justified.

So you are saying that neither men nor women can have the right to single sex groups? Why not?

I never said that. On the contrary I made it clear that if the legal exemption criteria is met single sex spaces are justified.

So you are saying that neither men nor women can have the right to single sex groups? Why not? Some women, and some men, want to meet only with members of their own sex. There are many unisex places and groups where everyone is welcome. Why are you so keen for men to butt in where they are not wanted? What do you get out of it?
In places where women are vulnerable, most of us don't want men at all, however they identify, and unfortunately for you, that has been clarified in law. Are you saying men have the right to ignore this?

Why do you believe some males should be allowed into female spaces? That’s the question? Why do you believe women should not have single sex spaces?

I agree with the law in that if there's no justification (as in meeting the special exemptions criteria) for discrimination in a particular context then spaces should be shared.

Why do you believe some males should be allowed into female spaces? That’s the question? Why do you believe women should not have single sex spaces?

I agree with the law in that if there's no justification (as in meeting the special exemptions criteria) for discrimination in a particular context then spaces should be shared.

Nope. Why do you believe some males should be allowed into female spaces? That’s the question? Why do you believe women should not have single sex spaces? You’ve already said sex and gender are different, so what aim would allowing males into female spaces achieve in your opinion? Would this benefit women? If not, what is the legitimate aim of making spaces mixed sex?
of course, if you do make a space mixed sex, and males with a trans identity claim that they need access to female spaces as they are scared of using male spaces, how will making spaces mixed sex make those males safer? The very males that they are scared of will also be in those spaces.

Unless of course you are arguing some males should be allowed into female because of their “gender”? In which case, why?

I think you have this the wrong way round. Its the group claiming the exemption that has to meet the special exemptions test.

so Why do you believe some males should be allowed into female spaces? What proportionate and legitimate aim would be achieved? How would allowing these males into female spaces and making the space mixed sex benefit women?

Um there is. Its this thing called 'anti discrimination law'. Women can only get exemptions under the conditions mentioned above. Being a women without meeting these conditions isn't enough.

27
(1)
A person does not contravene section 29, so far as relating to sex discrimination, by providing a service only to persons of one sex if—
(a)
any of the conditions in sub-paragraphs (2) to (7) is satisfied, and
(b)
the limited provision is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
(2)
The condition is that only persons of that sex have need of the service.
(3)
The condition is that—
(a)
the service is also provided jointly for persons of both sexes, and
(b)
the service would be insufficiently effective were it only to be provided jointly.
(4)
The condition is that—
(a)
a joint service for persons of both sexes would be less effective, and
(b)
the extent to which the service is required by persons of each sex makes it not reasonably practicable to provide separate services.
(5)
The condition is that the service is provided at a place which is, or is part of—
(a)
a hospital, or
(b)
another establishment for persons requiring special care, supervision or attention.
(6)
The condition is that—
(a)
the service is provided for, or is likely to be used by, two or more persons at the same time, and
(b)
the circumstances are such that a person of one sex might reasonably object to the presence of a person of the opposite sex.
(7)
The condition is that—
(a)
there is likely to be physical contact between a person (A) to whom the service is provided and another person (B), and
(b)
B might reasonably object if A were not of the same sex as B.
(8)
This paragraph applies to a person exercising a public function in relation to the provision of a service as it applies to the person providing the service.

Spaces can be single sex (for all the reasons mentioned- privacy dignity etc) or mixed sex.

There is no legal provision for 'women plus people who identify as women' spaces. It's not a thing.

But “ensuring physical privacy, safety, decency, or trauma-informed care” is literally why single-sex changing spaces/therapy groups/refuges etc exist.

Of course but it depends on the context is the point. Not all spaces involve these needs though or the needs are contestable. For example a space where being in a state of undress is problematic for obvious reasons like open change rooms but public toilets where locked cubicles exist its not so clear.

I’m not sure what difference you think your bold sections of text make to anything.

C'mon take a wild guess!

But “ensuring physical privacy, safety, decency, or trauma-informed care” is literally why single-sex changing spaces/therapy groups/refuges etc exist. No one is arguing that there should be single-sex corner shops or trains for example. And so if we all agree that transwomen may present visually as a gender stereotype of ‘woman’ but we all really know that their sex hasn’t changed and they’re still men, then there isn’t a problem with them remaining in their own single-sex spaces, is there?

I’m not sure what difference you think your bold sections of text make to anything.

So you’ve just argued sex and gender are different, so why would someone’s “gender” allow them to access spaces designated for the opposite sex?

Because it depends on whether the qualifying criteria I mentioned applies.

Nooo, but they are designated. So you’ve just argued sex and gender are different, so why would someone’s “gender” allow them to access spaces designated for the opposite sex? Why can they not use the mixed gender single sex spaces relevant to their sex?

So if sex and gender are different as you’re saying, and transpeople recognise that, why do they demand access to spaces designated for the opposite sex?

Spaces aren't owned by any sex. What determines their exclusive right to it as in a special exemption is there's a:

Legitimate Aim: The exclusion or restriction must pursue a genuine, lawful objective (such as ensuring physical privacy, safety, decency, or trauma-informed care).

Proportionate Means: Using the single-sex exception must be a proportionate means to achieve that legitimate aim. There are no blanket exemptions; each situation must be evaluated on its own merits.

Least Discriminatory Option: Providers must always choose the option that least restricts the rights of those affected.

Objectively Justified

In other words sex is not a get out of jail free card.

Spaces aren't owned by any sex. What determines their exclusive right to it as in a special exemption is there's a:

Legitimate Aim: The exclusion or restriction must pursue a genuine, lawful objective (such as ensuring physical privacy, safety, decency, or trauma-informed care).

Proportionate Means: Using the single-sex exception must be a proportionate means to achieve that legitimate aim. There are no blanket exemptions; each situation must be evaluated on its own merits.

Least Discriminatory Option: Providers must always choose the option that least restricts the rights of those affected.

Objectively Justified

In other words sex is not a get out of jail free card.

I think the point is there is no gender as a standalone phenomenon.
There are gender stereotypes, which exist, and gender identity, which we've defined. You've disagreed with @BiologicalRobot that gender doesn't exist, brought up gender stereotypes and gender identity, then retreated back to 'gender' again. You did coin a good definition of GI though: identifying with gender stereotypes. Other than that you're arguing in circles. Have a good day.