Trans vs other protected characteristics

[Rudest75]

As somebody who has always been an advocate of both women's rights and LGBT rights I'm struggling to get my head around the recent trans debate. It seems to be an issue where you can't really support both sides, yet it's so less clear to me than is the case between most opposing ideologies like conservative vs liberal, nationalist vs multiculturalist, etc.

A common question around the bathroom debate seems to be "what rights exactly are trans people being denied?" When I try and apply this question to other protected characteristics I'm even more confused!

If we take the statement "trans people shouldn't be allowed in women's spaces because of a minority of dangerous men" how does this differ from the following examples?

"Muslims shouldn't be allowed in Christian spaces because of a small minority of terrorists/suicide bombers."

"Immigrants shouldn't be allowed in native spaces due to a small minority of rapists."

"Black people shouldn't be allowed in white spaces due to a small minority of gang members/Bloods/Crips."

I can't get my head around it!

In my last post I put "TIF" when I meant "TIM".

@UpABitLate "The Labour movement was a male movement the same as all the other political parties. My DH is in a unionised industry, looking at the union people talk when they say protect the workers they are thinking of men."

I met a woman once who told me that when she joined a very male industry many years ago, she was prevented from getting shop floor experience (an essential and standard part of the fast track program she was on) was initially prevented from doing so by the union! There objection was because she was a woman. At least that wouldn't happen now (or at least not so brazenly).