you're falling into the trap of thinking terfs represent women's thoughts on this topic. they don't. statistics show that the majority of women are pro trans rights. most transphobes are men.
most women are perfectly happy for trans women to use their spaces, just as they have always done (legally). most women understand that trying to enforce this practically actually harms women - how are you enforcing this in public bathrooms exactly? checking genitalia? will cis women who don't look traditionally feminine get thrown out too? now that's what i call feminism.
most women understand that all the statistics show that this perceived threat from trans women is basic fear mongering, hate-fueled lies. you can find evidence of this by researching countries with self id already in place - Portugal, NZ - and the fact they have had no issues at all once that policy was put in place.
you say that 'The majority of violent threats towards trans people of course come from males, not radfems. Which ironically is kind of the point.' - whilst missing the point. all terfs want to do is blame trans women, when in reality, as you say, men are the problem. the terfs answer to this is, of course, that trans women are men, and therefore remain a danger to them. hence the very valid accusations of transphobia.
and you, like terfs, only focus on trans women. the existence of trans men is largely forgotten because it dilutes every terf talking point. the existence of trans men tells all of us that this isn't just some willful act of men to infiltrate women's spaces. there are women who also do not identify with their sex. it can and does happen to both sexes. it always has.
Do we have a large-scale representative survey asking women if they themselves would be happy to share a prison with biological males, for example? Or a large-scale representative survey asking women if they are happy for biological males to compete in women’s sports, for example? “Trans rights” in this context is incredibly ambiguous. Even in if we could unequivocally prove that over 50% of women are content to share their spaces with biological males, I don't think that necessarily means it should be imposed on women who want to keep sex-segregated spaces and sports. The majority of opponents to gender ideology are of course women, that’s why we have the term “TERF” and there is no term used to describe males with the same views. Men on the whole are simply not interested in being involved even if they don’t grasp the concept of gender. It’s why any protests or campaigns are female dominated, and why the protestors in Manchester the other week who were intimidated by men in balaclavas were almost exclusively women. We also have to take into account how many women do not want to speak their views due to fear of being shamed, insulted, threatened or attacked.
The argument around being unable to police bathrooms feels rather bizarre because it doesn’t acknowledge that the whole point of gender-segregated is so women (including transwomen) could have space free from cis-men. How are they going to keep cis-men out? In which case, men/women bathrooms are pointless since it doesn’t actually segregate cis-men from women, so we should just switch to solely gender-neutral spaces? Are the gym changing rooms going to be gender-neutral also since transwomen aren’t actually safe from cis-men in the women’s spaces, so what’s the point of them in the first place? Any way you choose to organise it, it’s an imperfect system but you choose the most practical solution and enforce it as best you can culturally. In the cases of prisons and sports for example, there can be a check of someone’s registered sex so these can be practically segregated but increasingly they aren’t.
The problem with “no issues at all” is any cases of women being attacked are written off as isolated incidents and therefore ultimately meaningless. Despite there being plenty of isolated incidents if you follow the discourse closely (which almost none of us do). And we're limited to the cases that actually make it to mainstream media, which of course not all cases do. Karen White assaulting women in women’s prisons for example, the victims have basically been written off as collateral damage. In the greater good for fair and equal treatment for transwomen, what’s the odd female victim, right?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ho-sexually-assaulted-inmates-jailed-for-life
Or how about the case in Loudoun county where the assault of a girl in the bathroom was covered up by the school, and when the father confronted the school about the incident, he was dragged out and labelled a transphobic bigot? Again, all these types of incidents are just “statistically insignificant” to gender ideologues.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...g-says-daughter-raped-boy-girls-bathroom.html
In the case of Lia Thomas, a biological male (who is attracted to women) was competing with biological females in their sport, and sharing the changing rooms with the women on this team. Reportedly Lia would often not cover their male genitalia when around the women in the changing room. When many of the women complained about this situation to the university, they were told they needed to seek therapy to fix their transphobia. Does this seem right to you? Even if no “crime” was deemed to be committed?
The point regarding violent threats is it’s commonly male-pattern behaviour. That’s why Terfs receive so many violent and sexual threats, it’s coming from biological males. It’s just much less common for women to make these types of threats. The reason you view “men” as the problem rather than “males”, is most likely down to population bias. There is infinitely more cis-men compared to transwomen, so of course they make up the majority of the crime. You would have to look at it in percentage terms however it’s very difficult to accurately reflect population percentages since it’s a giant question mark. Terfs believe, rightly or wrongly, that the biggest predictor in determining a individual’s threat to women is their biological sex, not their gender identity. If we’re to re-organise society around gender self-ID, we would have to unequivocally prove that not only does a the avergae trans identified male pose less of a threat than the average cis-male, but a trans identified male poses the equivalent level of threat to that of the average biological female.
In 2019 - 76 of the 129 transwomen prisoners known to be in prison UK are convicted sex offenders. That’s 58.9%. In comparison to ciswomen, 3.3%. In comparison to cis men, 16.8%. The stats we have in percentage terms certainly don’t seem to suggest transwomen have the same temperament and pattern of criminality as cis-women. The Swedish study into this issue also suggests the same.
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/trans-sex-offenders-are-moved-into-womens-jails-wmfb9k5n0
I foresee the argument, “you can’t hold other people responsible for crimes they didn’t commit”. That’s fair. The ironic thing is, you can apparently, because that’s exactly what gender ideologues seem to do to “cis-men”. Secondly, there’s a very clear difference between holding someone personally responsible for another person’s crimes, and thinking it’s reasonable to have sex-segregated spaces. We expect over 99% of males to accept that it’s reasonable they’re not allowed to share certain spaces with women even if the majority are completely safe and innocent, but for a small minority we’re meant to believe it’s a personal attack on their character and identity. And if we're making the argument that with self-ID we can reduce violence against transwomen by slightly raising violence against cis-women and it's a fair trade-off to make, sorry but no. Biological women shouldn't have to bare the brunt of reducing violence between biological males.