Well that's been an interesting day's read....
The cartoon of the skeleton on the rollercoaster nails it. Three or four years ago I was still at the stage of: limit it just to the fully transitioned and desperately gender dysphoric males in real need....
(Oh. But that's abandoning the females in real need who are bounced out of any space so I can save the male people in need and give them choice, leaving women without anything at all. Hm.)
And: the way forward is to be polite and not 'shrill'. To be the bigger person.
(Oh. That's me buying into sexism again isn't it? Women get heard only if they're nice enough, and polite enough, because they have to beg and soothe and placate in order to be heard, you have to make it think it's all his idea, gawd the 1950s want their oppression of women back. And... well. Women have been at this now for going on a decade. How is this tactic working for us really? Because the evidence suggests, this doesn't garner any respect, it's just taken advantage of as a sign of weakness, because this is standing up to a political lobby that is utterly devoid of any morals or ethics.)
It may take a couple of decades to turn around?
Yeah. Are we ok with twenty years of females being excluded from refuges, harmed in prisons and hospital wards, being increasingly afraid to and unwilling to use public changing rooms and toilets, and the evidence is showing this is not 'finding its level', male people are just getting bolder and more overt about it all. The body count of women excluded, harmed, frightened, raped, in all this niceness is climbing. Daily. I am not ok with that. A long term nicely nicely approach means abandoning other women.
The 'compromise' being talked of boils down to 'we limit it to just some men in real need'. Let's be honest.
As people have repeatedly explained:
You cannot limit it to some men and not others. Behind the OP is Bryson in floods of tears with just as sad a story. It cannot be done, it is not possible or realistic.
And to let some men in, excludes some women from anything so that some men can have the choice they feel they want and which would make them happy .
The price of compromise is women. You have to agree that you are all right with harming, excluding, women. You have to agree and face that you believe that people born without penises do not matter as much and it is ok for them not to have equality or access. And women saying that are coming from classes and educated backgrounds and sheltered backgrounds where they will never have to meet and face up to those women they're willing to sacrifice on the altar of sad male need, so feel ok with this.
Male supremacism is an opinion. But if that's what you're representing here, own it. Face up to it. Justify it.
As for 'what should happen to male people who enter a female only space....?'
Well what do you think should be the penalty imposed by society for excluding a female from any space or access at all? For dominating and controlling a space to push a female person out of it? For being unable and unwilling to permit female people access, inclusion, not meaning freedom of choice and matching their inner feelings but being able to go anywhere at all . For denying her health care? An escape from a lifethreatening relationship? For actively denying women equality of humanity with you and subordinating them to you needs?
It is abusive behaviour. It is prejudiced and discriminatory behaviour. It is shameful behaviour. And this is an attempt of a male, to tell women yet again, smugly, 'it's over. You can't stop us. We've taken that ground from you. Enjoy you're erasure'.
Fuck. That.