I believe that men and women should be treated equally without exception.
You seem to believe women are so fragile that they’ll disappear when in the presence of a trans woman.
If you speak to the Iranians, they sound exactly like you: “we’re just protecting women” so they say.

Ironic since you share views on single sex spaces with Iran and Afghanistan.

Trans people should use whatever service they prefer. Anything else is discrimination and authoritarianism that would make the Talbian proud.
It is telling that progressive countries like the Netherlands have stopped using sex on identity documents while Britain seems stuck in the past.

My argument is that single sex spaces are a convention that needs to be flexible enough to accommodate various people. That obviously includes trans people. If that flexibility is removed then the space itself should go too as it’s not tenable to ever enforce actual sex segregation like terfs want.

If a white person requested only a white doctor, should that be respected?
Male cleaners, nurses and doctors are regularly in women’s wards. Most European countries plus the US don’t segregate hospital wards at all. New hospitals are built with individual rooms.

I’m not in favour of basing laws on what sportsmen think. If equality laws have an adverse effect on sport then so be it.

Unless it is a private members club, clubs cannot discriminate based on sex actually. There have been cases of women’s nights at bars being ruled illegal.

Should male doctors be banned from women’s wards? If not, then segregated hospital wards make little sense, and will also be unenforceable. Who, honestly gives a damn about sports? Clubs can’t discriminate on sex unless they have an extremely specific reason. Refuges allow male children and teens.

Trans people, like all people, will use whatever toilet they want. Unless you have people standing guard at every toilet, which would be a gross violation of privacy, your policies will have no effect except to ferment paranoia. Do you expect people to humour bigoted policies?

Not immediately but it will eventually. Because what you’re suggesting is that every business either invades the privacy of everyone using their bathrooms or risk a lawsuit anytime someone mistakenly uses the wrong toilet.

Individuals use the wrong toilet all the time. Again, this is why your politics are unworkable. No club, for example is going to risk a lawsuit because a drunk woman pissed in a urinal. It’s genuinely cheaper then, to just ditch the single sex thing altogether.

The law requires no such thing. It is not against the law for a cisgender man to use a woman’s toilet or vice versa and never has been. Many women have used the men’s toilets when desperate and vice versa.

It does if it exists only for you to dump trans people into. People should use whatever toilet they want, which is the current situation. You are talking about restricting people’s liberties.

Likewise there is no justification for segregating trans people from their desired bathrooms. Segregated bathrooms have nothing to do with safety especially since trans people are not dangerous.

There’ll also be no lawsuits if everything becomes unisex, which is the direction new builds are heading in anyway. I can’t believe you’d forcibly segregate trans people and force them to out themselves every-time they need to pee. Universal gender neutrality is a perfect compromise the .

Rather telling that suddenly building toilets is so difficult when you were happy to force trans people into segregated facilities. I imagine in the old days you’d say it would be too expensive for people of different races to share bathrooms.

Well, due to the efforts of your political bedfellows, unisex spaces are going to become much cheaper than possible lawsuits. Also, as long as unisex spaces are private they are legally sound. The only legal requirement is around hospital wards but those aren’t single sex in practice anyway.

Who does this view appeal to other than self-aggrandising narcissists? Most atheists dislike religion on principle so won’t endorse using it as some “noble lie” - while most religious people will dislike being spoken of in such an instrumentalised way.

It is not indirect discrimination to not segregate people. Service providers are under no obligations to offer single sex spaces and neither are employers as long as private unisex facilities exist. Segregation is wrong and needs to be phased out.

This is going to blow up in your faces. No service provider is going to risk offering a single sex space because these regulations are unworkable. Everything will in short order become unisex and you’ll only have yourselves and your bigotry to blame.