This is embarrassingly incoherent.
You start with “women have most to fear from men” and somehow arrive at “therefore males should be allowed into women’s spaces.”
That is not an argument. It is a logic crash.
“Cis, straight, white men” is just word fog. The relevant safeguarding category is male. Not white male. Not straight male. Not badly dressed male. Male.
Women’s spaces exist because male people, as a class, pose a different risk to female people, as a class. A male person does not exit that risk category by putting on a dress, changing pronouns, or saying he feels like a woman.
And the prison data makes the “transwomen are safer than men” line look ridiculous. MoJ figures cited to Parliament showed male-born trans-identifying prisoners had sex-offence convictions at a much higher rate than male prisoners generally, and vastly higher than female prisoners.
So no, this is not some magically harmless subset of males.
The cubicle point is equally dim. Men’s toilets have cubicles. If cubicles solve the problem, use those. Women are not objecting because they think everyone can literally see them wee. They are objecting because privacy, dignity, safety and boundaries matter.
And the urinal waffle is irrelevant. If men dislike sharing with transmen, they can object too. It does not follow that women must surrender female spaces to males.
This whole post is just: “Men are dangerous, so let some of them into women’s spaces, because cubicles.”
Utter nonsense.