For a scientist, you're not using any logic.
This odd appeal:
We don't (well, we shoudn't) make sweeping assumptions about the likely behaviour of a group based upon the behaviour of individuals within it. Any other conclusion takes you into some rather dangerous territory.
Immediately collapses with:
and yet you would put transwomen in the dangerous position of using male facilities.
As ever women can't make 'sweeping assumptions' about men, but transwomen can.
What I won't do is change my position on the basis of rhetoric. I haven't seen much compelling evidence. I'm not really trying to change anyone's mind here, just provide some balance.
Let me tell you something julj70 misogyny and entitlement seems to be something that goes wholly unrecognised by the person demonstrating it.
You are arguing for the deconstruction of sex segregation. Based on criteria of your choosing. I believe you are trying to make a distinction where the criteria appears to be whether someone is genuine or not.
Leaving aside the actual criteria which determines whether you are genuinely female, you are expecting women to budge up on the basis of what a man, or many men, say.
What is repeatedly so striking about this is your inability to see this from anything other than the male gaze. It's all about what kind of men, how, why. None of this is about the fact that many women don't want any men in their space. Irrespective of how that man is thinking at any given time.
Partly because we don't know if someone is a threat or not (and never will - see Schrödinger's rapist), but also because given how many women are subjected to sexual assault, sexual harassment, and domestic violence, the presence of a man when vulnerable is discomforting, irrespective of his intentions.
I don't want to get undressed in front of my father-in-law, or share a changing room with my son's friends. None of whom are a threat.
I certainly wouldn't expect other women to, based on my say so!
Your attitude to women is that their autonomy and boundaries are up for question. Because you see women as 'lesser than', it's obvious and normal to you that their boundries can be challenged for your benefit.
You are demanding 'evidence and balance'.
You demand justification for why women are refusing to allow men in situations where they are disrobing.
You're taking this up with the wrong people. You need to direct your energies to the cause of the problem. Male violence.
But no, let's use that millennia of male entitlement to bang on at women on the Internet about nonsense intersex arguments to force them to give up their hard won single sex spaces.
In the meantime women's boundaries and consent are not subject to your made up balance and evidence.