In the current economic climate they , and everyone else, have got a lot more serious problems than the perception of other people.

We are discussing that. You cannot discuss one without the other.

What you are doing is exactly was deluded ideologues on the left want you to do, closely aligned with the deliberately vague and emotive but quite obviously unbalanced and directionless article you have just posted.

There is a difference between absolute neutrality and objectiveness in scientific theorem and posting an article deliberately selective in it's approach to try and justify an ideological proposition. We have seen this in recent history with those ideologically driven.

Conflating and selectively choosing the vast amount of parameters you 'could' attribute to gender identity with the actual biological determination is at best clutching at straws. Also, introducing social science into what can only be biologically concluded science is quite typical of the b0ll0cks one reads these days. Unfortunately those looking to prove their own idiotic and uneducated prejudices will no doubt cling to as proof or evidence, as you have just demonstrated.

There is no evidence or even notion among right thinking individuals that men and women sharing private locations such as toilets or changing rooms had any benefit to anybody other than those who are choosing not to accept the scientific fact of their gender. These people are so few, many of which are societally driven in their thinking, thanks to the likes of you, with no biological science to support their stance. The article you have presented relies upon contradictory stances (supporting what it seeks to endorse in places then ridiculing the same hypothesis elsewhere) and causes more ambiguity, which it seeks to exploit, as opposed to having any real context, application or definitive truth in it.

Kudos on the 'I can scour the internet to find something that somewhat supports my nonsense' approach. I'm sure people can and do utilise this approach for just about every single niche thought or delusion they wish to indulge in. Popular with those in America who you so diligently deride. I think it correct and appropriate you do so, however interesting to see you employ the same methodology.

Now Zaha's got a bit of green grass ahead of him here... and finds Ambrose... not a bad effort!!!!

I seriously doubt that's true.

You may suspect people, but could very easily be wrong. Both ways! This is a much more complex issue than appears at first glance.

There will be others you don't suspect, but who are indeed transgender, so you will just never know.

I have spent quite some time in Asia where this is much more open and accepted, than here. I can assure you that many of the transgender women there are completely undetectable, both by men and women.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

You asked for scientific proof that you were wrong, and would change your stance.

I have provided it. That is a comprehensive presentation of the facts and an analysis of how and why misinformation on this subject gets spread. A spread that you are obviously participating in.

To dismiss the reasoning as "deliberately vague and emotive", when it is anything other than that, is clearly nonsensical. It states the scientific basis for why the simple approach you adhere to is simply wrong.

If people refuse to withdraw their head from the sand, then there is little more I can do to help them. Read it again, and again, until you actually understand it, rather than start off with a prejudicial desire to dismiss it.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Try telling that to schoolgirls who have to use gender neutral toilets at school.

Anyway it's not just about toilets and changing rooms like I said the majority are being told to accommodate a minority and if they object are accused of being prejudiced.

One more point

Denying women's lived experience is part of the issue.