If you have been working with survivors you will most likely understand consent very well.
Can you please tell women why our rejection of consent for any male person to be included in a female single sex space should be ignored to allow a sub group of male people have access? On what grounds?
Framing the issue as being 'cis men are the problem' is really not true at all. Because the issue is firstly not just a safety issue, there are many harms that the presence of a male person in a female single sex provision can cause.
And to be blunt "but trans women are far more likely to be victims of sexual abuse than perpetrators" is an oft repeated statement that is not only emotionally manipulative, but it is irrelevant. If a group of male people require their own special provisions, then they should absolutely be campaigning for them. What they should NEVER have done was assume that they should be treated as being 'female' because they hold the philosophical belief that they are female.
This is where consent comes into the discussion. Even if a male person fully passes as being 'female', being in that space knowing that it is for female people only can be considered as an act of abuse. And if the female people in the space don't identify that he is there, it is abuse by deception. What other way is there to describe a situation where a male person accesses a female single sex space when they are male.
And no. Intersex people do not change the issue around male people with transgender identities.
It is irrelevant that some thinks any male person passes. There are well proven evidenced reasons why no male above the age of about 8 years old should not be accessing female single sex provisions at all. Even a male person who you believe passes 100% will also be correctly identified by a female person at some stage, it is simply not possible for them to pass 100% of the time with 100% of people.
Therefore, it is irrelevant whether they pass or not. The law is clear.
Safeguarding principles are clear too as they are based on risk assessment on a sex category basis.
There are a few reasons why this clarity exists.
Firstly, it is impossible for any male person to move from the male sex category to the female sex category because it is based on the sex class their body belongs to. This remains completely unchanged by any extreme body modification.
There are many reasons why a male person's sex class simply cannot be changed, scientifically because that body has cells coded as male from conception. This genetic coding resists any cosmetic or artificial change from hormones.
Changing how someone looks certainly does not change their sex.
Sports studies have also been very clear that no transition treatment reduce the physical advantages that male people have over female people. Even the lowest quartile of strength in male people are stronger than 90% of female people. If you would like the studies here is the thread:
www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5142027-save-female-sports-evidence-thread?page=1
Changing how someone looks certainly does not change their sex.
Then we have to consider that a male person knows they are male and has been treated as if they are male from conception, but maybe more understandably from birth. Therefore every interaction they have with society is as a male person and they react as a male person.
Philosophical theories or belief will not change the fact that that male person's interactions with the world is only as a male person. Certainly one who thinks of himself as not being male but is still male regardless.
No single sex provision has been created to allow male people access. It is very poor safeguarding to expose any female person who needs that provision to be single sex to a male person. No matter how that male person looks or acts. They are male.
Safeguarding exists as making blanket decisions about male people being excluded because no female people should have to make a decision on simple observation and in an instant whether that male person is going to attack, abuse or harm them in anyway. No female person should have to do a risk assessment in an instant of a male person who is in a female single sex provision.
In fact, it has been said and it has a lot of merit, that male people who make a deliberate choice to access a female single sex provision knowing that their very presence will potentially cause harm to a female person is doing so knowing the harm it will cause. That would be the definition of predatory behaviour, surely?
Then there is the aspect of discrimination. It is legitimate discrimination to exclude all male people from female single sex provisions. It is illegitimate and there are legal ramifications to discriminating against one or a group of male people by allowing one male person in and excluding the other male people.
This also relates to giving a group of male people access to GRCs. If the requirement is that they have hormones, surgery etc, that is discriminating against those male people who have transgender identities who cannot have hormones or surgery for what ever reason.
This is the law around discrimination.
So, that is also why it is not lawful to allow some male people into a single sex provision and not others.
However, EVEN with a GRC there are male people who will not even pass for those people who tell us they cannot tell between a male person and a female person. This then negates your argument about 'passing' male people.
It is a failure in safeguarding and it is a failure in law.
This is just the tip of the iceberg as to why allowing in a sub group of the group of male people that declare that they have transgender identities NEVER was the 'middle ground'. It might have made some people feel good supporting it thinking it was, but it never was.