I've flicked through this thread as it's frankly a whole load of repetitive nonsense and 'women's spaces' this and 'erosion of women's right's' that. It's a load of fucking bollocks and you fucking know it.
OK. Why? You make a very strong statement but I'm failing to see any reasonable justification. And in my observation, that's often the case with very strong statements.
Compare these three cases, in relation to the example you've given of women's spaces (lavatory or changing area). Transwoman, at risk of persecution from men. Wants the right to share female-only spaces. Woman, former rape victim, also at risk of persecution from men. Traumatized by her former experiences, she does not want to share these semi-protected female spaces with any be-penised person. Women as a whole, at risk of physical and sexual violence at the hands of men. Just look at the statistics. This threat is present and real.
Whose rights should trump whose here? And why?
IMO there are so many implied issues here that should give rise to serious, reasoned debate as to the way forward. #NoDebate and #NoPlatform are not going to achieve that. Neither are screaming 'bigot' or 'transphobe'.
Major problem 1: if the common risk to both women and transwomen is men, then why is that not the issue being tackled? Why lay it at the door of women?
Major problem 2: the sharing of facilities with transwomen is a long-established process that has been going on since time immemorial (An oft-quoted argument by TRAs). The proposed self-identification law would effectively implement an open-door policy. If we accept, for the sake of argument, that no transwoman could possibly ever be a threat to a woman this still doesn't preclude the opportunists, who can now masquerade freely as women in order to gain unchallenged access to their victims. And I'm afraid the TRAs' argument on that score: 'but that won't happen', just doesn't fly. It will. It already has.
So if the common denominator of risk to both transwomen and women is men, and they've just succeeded in opening up these semi-protected spaces in this way, they've also succeeded in increasing the risk posed by men to both women and transwomen.
Not very smart, to say the least. Who wins here? People with more vulnerable bodies who really need those protected spaces? Or an ideology?
Also, could you please justify how any of the questions raised above amount to 'hatred' of transpeople, rather than a serious question about what happens when the rights of two groups of people conflict?