This thread is an excellent example of missing the point of an argument. The worry of @Docstockk and others is that we do not yet have evidence that transwomen are less likely to sexually assault females than men are (given that most trans women are still biologically male). 1
Women-only spaces exist as a protection for females from sexually assault and harrassment by men. That does not imply (and most men understand that it does not imply) that all men are likely to assault women. Yet all males are (without complaint) excluded from female spaces. 2
Thus, transwomen and their allies are being disingenuous if they understand the claim that 'Transwomen may be a likely to commit sexual violence against women as men are' as 'All transwomen are sexual predators'. The latter is not what is being claimed here. 3
If transwomen do offend against females at a similar rate to men, they should be excluded from female only spaces as men are. That is not to say that they shouldn't have their own safe spaces, before anybody asks. 4
The fact that 'women victimize other women' is irrelevant to the argument. (Note @ergo_praxis's conflation here of 'sexual assault' with 'victimization'.) Currently in the UK, 3% of imprisoned sex offenders are women. Women are not very likely to commit sexual assault. 5
Females can look after themselves against other females better than they can against biological men who are often larger and stronger than they are. Hence the need for spaces which are exclusionary on the basis of sex not gender. 6
In short, this argument is not that 'some transwomen might commit offences, so all should be excluded'. That version misses several premises out which require further empirical investigation and discussion. Safeguarding for females should not be jeopardised in the meantime. 7
