On a practical level it is IMPOSSIBLE to legislate in a way that protects women and girls and includes the indefinable quality of males who believe they are women.
All legal definitions need to be definable by third neutral parties.
This can not be based on what people wear or the adornments they wear, because there are times where the presence of a naked penis is precisely the problem.
We can go round and round forever on this, but ultimately it comes back to this point.
In law we CAN NOT legislate that a man is whatever he says he is and impose his identity on a collective of women, but women can not define their own identity and their collective identity and claim it's equality. Why? Because it's sexist. It is that simple.
If we believe in equality, and this is the stick we are beaten with to enable this shit, then this is a total oxymoron. It is not compatible with this principle.
If we believe in fairness before the law, then we have to have observable definitions that are neutral and a third party can reference and draw from in order to judge the situation without prejudice. The idea that a man can just say he's a woman but a woman can not go 'thats a man because I can objectively observe he's a man' is a total legal nonsense.
Again in all these arguments about how it's unfair to transwomen and how very dare we speak this, we never ever get past the practicality of this.
Instead now we are getting this push back against single sex provision from people who don't like this saying the law is not workable! The irony is palpable. It IS workable, they just don't want to observe it or challenge where appropriate because they get the whiney screams of those who don't like it and don't want to respect the opposite sex and principles of consent.
Honestly, if you don't want to observe the law campaign properly to change it, but keep on mind you have to come up with some none sexist legal definitions which fit with existing laws on sexual harassment and voyeurism. You know this practical legal stuff, rather than rabbiting meaningless word salad that collapses at the slightest attempt to poke it with practical real world test cases - you know those bloody awkward ones where creeps and pervs seek to find loopholes in the system to exploit. The law is the vanguard against these people first - you can't just ignore them and pretend they don't exist because they don't fit your narrative or your stereotypes! You can't disavow them as not being 'proper' because it doesn't suit you agenda!
You have to come up with a practical argument that offers women protections that are as good or better than single single provisions, rather than saying that there is an acceptable level of collateral damage of women to benefit men, otherwise that's against the human rights of women and is a role back on their existing rights.
Males who say they are female still have rights and protections. But that has to be balanced with the rights and protections of women. It is not for women to sacrifice themselves to accommodate males at their own expense.
TRAs never ever get past this point, to be able to start a meaningful debate that is in the interests of women to indulge.
Come back solutions to these practical level issues and we'll talk. Until then.
Tough shit.