There is room for single sex and identity-based spaces along with open spaces. They all have value and merit. Seeing the value in single sex spaces or wanting a same sex provider only means that, attaching it to trans people doesn't help anyone. Sex and race are not the same thing and mixing the two doesn't help any more than that when people mix up trans issues with intersex issues.
A strict hierarchy of vulnerability doesn't work, we can divide people up an infinite number of ways. Is a natal woman with multiple disabilities more or less vulnerable than a trans woman with none? Is someone who is female and dysphoric more or less vulnerable than someone who identifies as a trans woman who does not a dysphoria diagnosis? Is a man who is a sexual abuse survivor more or less vulnerable than a trans woman who has no abuse history (which, by the research, would put her in the minority)? We could do this all day and it wouldn't do anything. When it comes to the law, everyone should be considered.
I believe the medical professionals who have research and identified gender dysphoria
Gender dysphoria has not been 'identified' and is continuously changing in both medical and political framework. We have decades of research that use it as a symptom that has multiple causes and could lead to a range of diagnoses, not all of which benefit from transition. In the early '00s one of the conditions for which it was a symptom for - Gender Identity Disorder - was tossed out and replaced with gender dysphoria as a diagnosis. This has had pros and cons (part of the reason for this was an attempt to create consistency, the idea being the assessments for transition should take place prior to a gender dysphoria label due to the after method being significantly affected by medical trends. This did not work very well and the lack of consistency is still a major issue). We now have medical professionals who want to toss the whole thing out all together for "gender incongruence" with the distress element reduced or removed.
None of this is 'identifying' gender dysphoria, if anything it seems to be obscuring distress by one's sexed characteristics for many other things. Personally, I think too much of the research and medical framework has gotten wrapped up in politics that the care elements of trying to reduce pain and suffering and maximise wellbeing has been tossed aside for pushing people into various political philosophies. The inconsistency is growing with the entire range from 'informed consent clinics' to places that require years of political hoopjumping to get what should be medical treatment for the minority of dysphoric people who come forward for related medical treatment. Evidence-based practice of multidisciplinary care involving a range of therapies has become mostly ignored with face-to-face time dropping in many places in favour of 'demedicalization' which goes against the research but fits within some political ideologies. I'm against that as someone who has dealt with having gender dysphoria for decades and currently tries to help people dealing with the aftermath of these shifts. If we believe medical research, what is going on is not in line with what is shown to be best for people.
I've been stepping back from the trans threads because, as others said, it does seem the same song and dance every time and I've not seeing anything new really come out for a while. I regularly feel caught in the middle trying to debunk all sides but the same stuff keeps coming up. Honestly, at the moment, I'm happier discussing anything other than how badly gender dysphoria is misunderstood, how badly research is misread (which is usually a favourite of mine), how there have been people fighting for sex neutral facilities and spaces so saying we "should just fight for..." when we have with little support for decades is kinda annoying, how insulting it is when people misuse intersex people for discussions on trans people and the messiness that often comes up like medical abuse and intra-sex violence both of which I think are underresearched.