This is one of many examples of the word 'inclusion' being used in a way that was not intended when the term was initially coined, to create tyrannical, unhelpful situations for everyone.
Inclusion, from an education perspective anyway, was always about ensuring pupils had full access to an education. It was to stop pupils from being excluded due to disability, race, sex, English as an additional language etc. So teachers would differentiate their lessons sometimes four ways so that all pupils could access the lesson, and one of the reasons for teaching assistants.
Now they use the word 'inclusion' to argue that men should have access to women's toilets, domestic violence refuges etc. That if we don't allow this we are 'excluding them.'
It's a bit like adults insisting that they be included in primary school lessons because otherwise they are 'being excluded.' No, these lessons are not for you. You don't miss out on anything by not being included in a primary school lesson, but you would ruin the learning for all of the children. In the same way, men don't miss out by not being allowed into women's spaces, because they already have men's spaces, but women lose out a great deal when all of our spaces become open to men.
Queer theory seems to do this a lot - take one previously useful and helpful term (intersectionality is another good example) and take it way past it's initial meaning to result in something that is the opposite of useful or helpful to society.
So, including men in women's spaces actually excludes women. And by including everyone under the 'LGBT+ umbrella' you are making life harder for actual lesbian, gay and bisexual people who suffered and continue to suffer discrimination and even death in some countries for their sexuality. I know I'm preaching to the choir here but I felt I needed to write this out.