The problem is that you aren't recognising the core. You say:
Just saying with no evidence that trans women pose a threat to women in vulnerable situations for example, is not a good faith argument.
Do you accept that it is well-evidenced that men pose a risk to women in vulnerable situations, or not? Because MALES pose a threat to women in vulnerable situations, and the evidence is very, very clear that gender identity does not alter that at all. If you think it is unreasonable and demonises trans women to say that single sex spaces must remain just that, then the logical extension is that there should be no single sex spaces, as they are unfair to men.
Most males pose no threat to women. But almost all those posing a threat to women are males. We exclude males to reduce that threat, and if you want to make an argument that one subset of males should be exempt from that, then you need to explain why, in a manner that does not wholly centre their feelings, and ignore the best interests of the women.
I didn't see anyone deny that most violence to women is by those known to them. However, you have ignored one very large element, which is that we have created a society that largely prevents strange males from accessing us when vulnerable. Clearly, that's not so with those males we know. If your solution is to say, well, women are vulnerable mainly to those they know and trust, so let's make them more vulnerable to a subset of males they don't, because what difference does it make, then you are ignoring women's best interests to serve males.
Finally, you ignore the reality that many, many women do not want to share a communal space where everyone undresses with males. Personal modesty in this regard is a human instinct - it's noted as a developmental stage, in fact, when your child is assessed if they have additional needs. Women are also trained from very small to protect themselves by not allowing themselves to be vulnerable around strange males, and being forced to do so is guaranteed to cause distress to some and unease to most. This is amplified exponentially to women survivors of male sexual violence. Yet, again, you can't see why women shouldn't centre males.
Feminism is not about centring males. To centre males is the antithesis of feminism. And calling women who prioritise doing so bigots and unfair to males is misogynist.
Demonising anyone is wrong. Painting all of a group as harmful and predatory is wrong. Recognising that almost all violently predatory people are male, and that it's therefore necessary to exclude all males from spaces where women are vulnerable, is simply a recognition of material reality. And it certainly isn't an affront to transwomen, because it has nothing to do with them being trans. It's because they are male, with the same offending risk as any other male and (in the very large majority of cases) the same biology as any other male, and women have a right to boundaries.
We're being told women have a right to boundaries as long as male people say that we can have them. This is misogyny.
The reality is simple: transwomen are not female. And women have a right to insist on single sex provision for our safety and our dignity. The fact we meet with rape and murder threats for asserting that boundary on the one hand, and cries of being hateful and bigoted and why can't we just be kind on the other... well, it does nothing to convince me that we are in the wrong, let's put it that way.
You are saying that it is bigoted for women to refuse to accept a claim that male people should be treated as female, based solely on the male person's assertion to a state of mind, and despite clear evidence that the behaviour patterns, as a group, remain male. This is your faith based belief, and I respect your right to have it. I do not respect your attempts to coerce other women to live by faith beliefs that they do not share.