Yes well, I’ve always said that the safety argument was based in fear and not actual evidence because there is none.
Of course there is evidence that women are at greater risk in mixed-sex facilities. And not just anecdotally. This is the reason we have female-only provisions after all.
What happened here is based on a logical fallacy. We argue that allowing males who identify as trans access to female-only provisions increases the risk to females because males as a class pose a risk to females as a class. The Scottish Government (and trans rights campaigners) ignored the fact that our argument is based on the male sex class as a whole and instead asked if there was any specific proof that males who identify as trans pose a higher risk to females than females themselves do.
We know from an FOI that the civil servant(s) tasked with the literature review which informed the Scottish Government's report on the GRA Reform Bill only looked for evidence based on this extremely limited framing. Whether that was deliberate, done without understanding of the issues or plain lazy, we do not know. What we do know is they didn't find any actual studies showing the risk posed by males who identify as trans is equal to the risk posed by females, nor did they find any that even looked into the issue 
and very little on the inclusion of such males in female-only provisions - just one. And that one they misrepresented. Blatantly, as pointed out by previous posters.
This false framing isn't unique to this particular aspect of the debate. It's currently also being employed in regard to the World Rugby ruling on including males who identify as trans in female teams. Ross Tucker painstakingly explains why the framing is wrong in an excellent Twitter thread which starts
"This has been a common argument in the trans women in rugby debate. People have the idea that unless you directly study rugby AND show that TW cause injuries, it can’t be evidence based. Of course it can - there are peer reviewed studies that show two related things
He goes into detail here, but in short, to show that it is dangerous to allow males who identify as trans to play rugby against females, you do not need to provide evidence of such players already having injured female players.
You can do two other things instead:
-
establish the biological differences between the performance of males and females
-
establish whether (and by how much) these biological differences are changed in males who transition medically.
(As the IOC rules are based on testosterone suppression, this is what they looked at for 2.)
The evidence showed 1) a large difference in performance between males and females (strength, speed, power amongst other things) based on biological differences between the sexes and 2) testosterone suppression did not level these differences. Not even remotely.
The scientific method allows you to combine these two results to conclude that the large difference between males and females results in an unacceptable risk to females if males are allowed to play against them. And that the increased risk is not reduced in any significant way by a medical transition, ie males who identify as trans represent the same risk to females as all other male players.
The same reasoning applies to our topic:
Female-only provisions exist for the physical and psychological wellbeing of females. Because males as a class are a risk to females as a class.
In order to decide whether it puts females at risk to allow males who identify as trans access to female-only provisions, you don't need to show that males who identify as trans have already harmed women after gaining access. All you need to do is:
-
establish the risk that males as a class pose to females as a class and
-
establish whether and by how much that risk changes when males identify as trans.
Unlike with Rugby however, there is no clear boundary drawn to base a decision on for 2. We can go with
a) fully transitioned
b) testosterone suppression
c) social transition
d) no changes whatsoever
We have ample evidence for 1). Decades worth of empirical data as well as psychological, forensic and medical research proving this is a global truth. That's why female-only provisions exist. And why they exclude all males. No matter how vulnerable any individual male may be when they are in male-only spaces.
The risk to vulnerable males in male-only provisions is a separate matter from the issue in question and addressing the problem by abolishing female-only provisions violates the rights of females.
Thus, arguments based on the risk males who identify as trans face in male-only spaces are irrelevant to the question of whether their inclusion in female-only provisions increases the risk for the females in these spaces. Instead, those seeking trans inclusion must not only prove that identifying as trans lowers the risk a male poses to females but also that this risk is lowered to the level females pose to other females. Furthermore, in the absence of a clear cut off, of a minimum transition threshold, they must also show which level of transition lowers the risk by what degree. In the absence of any such evidence of lowered risk, inclusion must be rejected. Because our premise - that males as a class pose a risk to females as a class - has not been disproven. And neither has any evidence been provided that would exempt males who identify as trans from the risk posed by all males as a class.
Obviously, the fact that access demands are no longer limited to post-op transsexuals but now include male-presenting males who declare a female identity by their very presence in female-only provisions weakens the opposition's case further.
And that's why we are constantly told we have no evidence that males who identify as trans have harmed females in female-only provisions, just fear. To divert us and stop us from making the clear, evidence-based case that we do indeed have.