We don't leave our doors and windows wide open when we go out because 'thieves will find a way in, anyway.' Strangely, I've never heard anyone say 'let's stop background checking teachers, because paedophiles will always find a way to interfere with kids.' When men - all men, however they identify - are banned from women's spaces, those who disregard the ban can be challenged, inside the space and out. They mark themselves out as suspicious by breaking a rule decent men respect. Nobody claims the rule has successfully kept out every single man who wants to commit voyeurism or sexual assault. What we're saying is that allowing males into female only spaces on the basis of their claim to be a women removes an obstacle that has hitherto been *proven* to increase women and girls' safety. 88% of sexual crimes committed in changing/locker rooms happen in those that are unisex. Why? Because malign men don't have to justify their presence near unclothed women and girls. They can't be challenged. They don't stand out. This is obvious to all but the terminally naive. It is too seldom noted that every single man arguing for the removal of single sex spaces is arguing for his *own* right to enter those spaces. I know from experience that they feign outrage when this point is put to them, gibbering that they're just being good, virtuous progressives who're standing up for trans women, that they *personally* won't be availing themselves of the new opportunities afforded them. The fact remains that instead of calling out male violence against trans women, and working to make male spaces safer, these men have thrown their energy into the fight to remove women's and girls' rights to safety, privacy and dignity. And if anyone genuinely believes none of these enthusiastic heterosexual, non-trans-identified male 'allies' aren't personally enthralled by the idea of women and girls losing basic protections, I have several bridges to sell you.