Thank you for pointing out the current thinking with appropriate references. However, I am less clear about how “the debate . . . penalises women” as you assert. You then go on to talk about no gender toilets and point out that, in your university, there are still ‘men only’ toilets. I would argue that there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for this: the nature of men’s toilets as distinct from women’s facitlities. Exposure of the male organ is unavoidable in a urinal, although, in 60+ years of using them, my experience has been that the vast majority of men take steps to minimise such exposure. A woman who is offended or frightened by such a sight would be well advised not to enter.

I believe that female toilets have separate cubicles, which means that in the normal course of events no user is exposed to another.

There are those who would argue that boys are at greater risk from men in male toilets than are women from cross-dressers in women’s toilets. In either case, if an assault is committed, that is the crime. Of course, it is aggravated if deception is used in order to gain access, and the punishment should reflect that.

Where is the harm in someone who identifies as a woman and, therefore, has no intention to harm other women, using female facilities? On the other hand, maybe the same risk to girls from gay women exists as that to boys from gay men in single sex facitilities. Which leads me to conclude that ‘no gender’ toilets are probably safer for both genders as well as those who identify as different from their bilological gender.