One bit of the article on the Canadian case jumped out at me: "the decision on this case upholds the right of groups to fight the discrimination they feel, in the manner they see fit, without being expected to take on the burden of other disadvantaged groups... which is the feminist view of transgender issues in a nutshell, isn't it?
Other aspects of the article that were interesting were:
(i) the court finding that the transwoman in question was trying to gain entry into a women-only group 'in order to validate her womanhood'; and
(ii)"Rape Relief's collective belief is that far beyond a person's biological make-up, socialization and experience are what shapes individuals. It's part of their philosophy that women experience the male-dominated world differently than men. That was the 34-year-old organization's original argument for why they should be allowed to exclude men when their women-only policy was first challenged in the 1970s, and they feel it's relevant to whether they should admit transsexual women". The judge "... compared Rape Relief's philosophy to religious conviction and described their beliefs as "articles of faith" meaning "...matters of received or accepted wisdom, intuitively correct and not requiring logical or scientific demonstration for their validity." Yes! This applies to both sides of the debate, it is why biology-based arguments do not supply an answer.
(iii) The law recognizes that drawing distinctions isn't necessarily discrimination, and considers a number of factors such as whether being denied access to an organization or service prevents a complainant "participating in the life of the community." Decisions are made within the context of where the complaint takes place. For example, if there is only one women's group in the community it might be discrimination, but if there are a number of groups serving different interests it may not be".
On the questions in the posts above: Should transwomen..
be forced to use male changing rooms and toilets
Toilets no, changing rooms in the absence of a neutral/communal alternative, usually yes. However, I think the law should allow transpeople-anyone, in fact-to demand such a neutral or communal alternative, on pain of sanctions for the institution involved if it fails to provide them. New buildings should be required to provide such facilities as a matter of course.
be placed in male prisons if given a sentence
No. There must urgently be a safe trans-specific facility provided.
be denied access to all services targeted at women
There is no general answer to this, it should be considered on a case-by-case basis.
be referred to as male in all contexts, and despite their wishes or any distress it causes
No. However, those with genuine good faith beliefs that they are not male should not be accused of bigotry for holding that belief. It is as deserving of respect as the opposite view.