Barbara imagine - and this is something that does really happen - a child who suffered severe burns as a toddler and is terribly scarred, is causing a fuss at the local swimming bath communal changing room. Mothers don't want their children to be exposed to the sight of this child's scars and are saying to the staff that it's too upsetting to them to have to see this child and can't somewhere private be found for him and his mother. Of course the child and her mother are shattered by this, and it wasn't as if they didn't have enough distress around the situation before they were told they shouldn't upset people in public places.
In this situation, there is nothing concrete underlying the reaction but subjective emotion. The child is accessing the exact same provision every other child her age and sex would be accessing, and the only reason for the barrier is that the child's body looks different. The child's scars will cause no actual objective harm to look at. There is no risk associated or known to others from severe scarring that needs to be assessed and managed. So the basis of people's protests are in essence 'it is too upsetting/scary to me to be exposed to this, I can't handle it' and historically and culturally society expected to put people with differences out of sight and out of mind, and many people have rarely seen others with significant physical difference and had very little opportunity to accustom themselves. So absolutely, bottom line, that child and mother are damned well going to be supported to change in a public place and the staff have a lot of work to do around them not experiencing tuts, disapproval and upset from other people because of it. BUT from working directly in this situation I can assure you that telling the women complaining - whatever you may personally be muttering at the back of your mind - to shut up and deal with it, will not achieve equality or protection for the mother and child, and will do nothing to resolve the problem. It will just make the people complaining feel angrier and more entrenched as they haven't been listened to and have been made to feel bad about their feelings, and make the rejection more embedded. They will be armed and more ready to reject the next person they meet with physical differences, building on their bad experience.
What does work to increase inclusion is to keep your boundary of this child has the right to be here even if it distresses you, and at the same time hearing and addressing the feelings of the people protesting. With compassion. With understanding that these feelings are hard for them, they are genuine, and if you want to change them you need to help. So conversations like finding out why it's so upsetting for them - the basis is usually they are desperately upset this happened to the child, and don't know how to express that, or how to be around a parent in this obvious situation of grief and loss- actually do help. Attitudes shift.
You're viewing trans as the same here: a person in a physical body that doesn't look as expected, and that's something the person had no control over. So look through the attitudes and feelings behind people who are raising concerns. Is a trans person in a male body in a female changing room doing exactly the same as any other person of their sex would do?
No. You're asking women to accept that a male body - like all the male bodies segregated by current law with full acceptance from all just a few yards away in the male changing room - should be acceptable in a women's space if the male bodied person wants it to be. That's very debatable. That's not straight forward prejudice at all, people are being asked to radically reconstruct concepts and boundaries and make exemptions to law, based on nothing more than one person's subjective feelings.
Using the 'you're just not used to seeing difference' - SHOULD all women and girls be cool about getting naked in mixed sex environments with male strangers? Is it a good thing that women and girls are taught to overcome, aka ignore their embarrassment and possible intimidation and harassment? A good thing to teach women and girls to release and reduce their boundaries around their body and their privacy? What are we going to do about women and girls with faith conflicts that will not allow them to do this - particularly since some of them come from minority groups already struggling with equality and freedom for women and access to public life?
Is there a real possibility of harm? Yes. There isn't a way around this one. The whole basis of sex segregation is to reduce harm and assault for women as a class. Male bodied people in women's spaces does come with real risk that needs to be assessed and managed; telling the women to shut up about the risk doesn't make the risk go away or reduce it. Not in line with risk assessment standard process, not in line with standard safeguarding process, risks inclusion for the group as if a bad experience happens as a result of bad process (Hello Karen White) then attitudes strongly harden against that group. What are we going to do about the many (1 in 5 isn't it?) women who have experienced assault and rape, and are afraid to be in situations of vulnerability and undress where male bodied people are?
Do we need to think about wider concerns here like, if we change the boundaries of what 'woman' legally means to include men, then what happens to the sex protections in law for women? If we move around the definition of 'woman' to say nothing to do with biology at all, it's about expression of femininity - does that harm women and girls? Are all women feminine? Should they be? Are we actually incentivising women and especially girls that 'proper' and nice women are feminine, accepting of male choice above their own feelings and cool with getting naked with men watching them? Anything you could see that might go wrong with that?
If we slide into law that fixes that a male bodied person's right to choice, freedom from embarrassment and sense of self is more important than a female bodied person's right to choice, freedom from embarrassment and physical safety have we (re) fixed in law that female bodied people are innately subordinate and inferior to male bodied people and legally entitled to less consideration and provision?
I get why you see it the way that you do, but it's about understanding this is a much bigger, more complex issue and it's using the disability lingo and expectations in a way that legitimises and waves through things which as a society we must stop and talk about. Despite the efforts of people, including the speaker of the House of Commons, to avoid that happening. And think about why they want to stop this conversation instead of having it.