Where should the burden of proof lie re single sex spaces?

[Crankyoldboiler]

Those "progressives" seeking to take away women's rights to single sex spaces, sports and services use the argument that self ID is unlikely to be abused and that TWs are harmless, hard done by people while GCs are hysterical nasty bigots. While it may be true that genuine transsexuals pose little or no threat to our safety, we should place the burden of proof fairly and squarely back on those wanting to make the change. So David Lammy/Keir Starmer/ privileged male/handmaiden (delete as appropriate), you're fond of quoting the questionable stats on trans suicides, please give us the stats on what percentage of males are sexual predators, autogynephiles, voyeurs, exhibitionists etc. and what that means for women's safety. Oh you can't, so you can't be sure that it is safe to proceed then can you?

only a tiny proportion of scoutmasters / priests / teachers use the cover of their jobs to groom and abuse children. So would Starmer at al propose a self-certification system instead of rigorous and legally-enshrined safeguarding procedures? I’d love to hear the answer to that

There should be no need for any proof.
Why should females have to justify single sex spaces at all? Male feelings are irrelevant.

No males in female spaces. No debate.

Turning the debate on abuse is wrong

Unless we focus on women who have been abused and are therefore require such spaces to avoid mental health problems, panic attacks or self exclude from society

And also the fear of abuse leads to women needing such spaces or they exclude

Since women are underrepresented, we still need to enable their participation

If abuse was not so common perhaps there could be a case , but the number of abused women far exceeds the number of trans women

Chesterton's fence - you're right that the argument to be made is why they're safe to remove and that we need data not optimism.