I already stated what the problem with your hypothetical question is, and you clearly did not understand. Here it is again: Just because there is a way for someone to CHEAT their way in, does not immediately mean it is not okay to have a boundary in the first place.
Think of it this way: if I lock the doors to my house, it means I don't want anyone to come in without my permission. Could someone still break in? Yes. Could they even do it in a way that I would not even notice? Probably. Does it therefore mean that there is no point in me denying anyone entry? No. Does it mean I am morally wrong for wanting people to stay out? No. Does it mean I cannot hold you accountable once you find your way in? Also no.
When I, hypothetically, create a female-only space and a trans man asks to get in, there is a 99% chance that I recognize her femaleness anyway, because there are just about five hundred different ways to observe someone's sex, zero of which involve her removing her clothes (my pronoun use is sex-based, by the way. I am not giving up on clear communication just because someone else has religious beliefs about their identity). Do you know how I know? Well I know exactly the way that YOU, right there, know what passing as male looks like. You perfectly understand what it means for someone to have a male-looking body, which is why you selected these pictures in particular and not some others. It is like that for me too. Most trans men don't look like these people in the pictures, they look like females that have some wispy facial hair and a broken voice. Transitioning simply isn't the kind of magic trick people like you love to claim it is (and phalloplasties definitely do not fucking resemble actual penises, trying to insist otherwise is the worst fucking gaslighting in existence). That's still not the point, though! Because if I actually cannot tell, I still have two options: 1) I can tell her that I do not feel safe letting her in because of her voluntary, but invasive body modifications, so she has to find a place somewhere else, OR, 2) I will decide to trust her and let her come in on the basis that she seems very honest, just like most people are most of the time. If I deny her entry and she doesn't understand my decision? Well, maybe she should have thought of that before she transitioned so well that her femaleness is no longer visible. Isn't this what she wanted, anyway? Isn't this the consequence of her own actions? Obviously, this is only true in a private facility that is in my control, but that's what this whole conversation is about: private housing.
In the larger context, though: female spaces ARE based on trust, they always have been. Having such a space does not mean anyone is asked to strip naked and bring extraordinary proof, it means that if you are not the target group, you will BE FUCKING HONEST AND VOLUNTARILY OPT OUT so that the leftover opportunistic criminals will start standing out from the crowd.
Which means 99% of criminals, if that isn't clear to you already. People don't steal because they're reckless and unhinged sociopaths, they steal because something made them believe they wouldn't get caught, aka. there was a good opportunity for it. In other words: men don't stay away from women's spaces because someone is literally, physically holding them away, but because they understand that walking in makes them LOOK like predators to everyone else and therefore reveal them as a potential suspect. THAT is how women's spaces have operated, and THAT is how they have been so safe for so long. This rule will immediately stop being effective if we suddenly tell men they can walk in as long as they identify as a woman, because identifying as a woman is just a sentence. It's just a string of words you utter, if asked. Nobody else will be able to tell if it dEsCrIbEs yOuR iNnEr sOuL or if it is just a formal passcode you said so that you could get access to a space you weren't welcomed in before.
Trans men aren't in an easy situation when they fully pass, this is true. They will ALSO stand out in a bad way once they enter women's spaces. This is not their fault, but it is not other women's fault, either. So just because they might have to clarify their own position at times does not mean we should be forced to stop upholding the general rule, or that we are evil for deciding that it's still important.
"Two white cis rad fems come on here telling the world that they're uniquely oppressed when trans women of colour face the highest amount of violence and murder from white cis men, but your ideals don't accept that." What ideals? In what world has anyone here claimed that misogyny is the only form of oppression in existence? There is also homophobia and racism, yes. That does lead to male-on-male violence, yes. But women's spaces are not meant for everybody that's oppressed for any reason, it is meant for women because they want protection from misogyny. Or do you think women should start inviting gay males to women's spaces? Disabled males? Black males? Such men ARE oppressed for these qualities, but that does not mean they are suddenly incapable of being misogynistic. You would know that if you actually understood what intersectionality means.
"Finally, the harm done by males in non-welcoming spaces, do you have any sources for that? Especially as I KNOW you are implying trans women with that, I need you to show me sources of a confirmed individual who is outside of this description"
Like I already said, criminals are opportunistic. If you tell males that they can gain an easy, undisputed access to women by the simple utterance of "I am somewhat of a woman myself", then lo and behold, that's exactly what many of them will do. It's not a fucking coincidence that a lot of the males that used to get away with misogynistic violence through other means now use the trans identity as a cover. Their true identities are not relevant. You cannot tell them apart from the "real trans women". Both will say the same things. Both will do the same things. Both are males. Both can be dangerous to women, irrespective of how they themselves are treated by others.
And anyway, do you actually fucking mean to tell me that you do not genuinely believe males have ever tried to enter women's spaces with an intention to cause harm?
Because if you do, then you have zero reason to believe trans women need protections from male violence either. They are women to you, aren't they? Why bother fighting for a space for "ALL" women if women aren't actually targeted?
Look, you have zero responsibility to be a feminist if you don't believe in feminism. But then you do not fucking get to lecture over us, implying that you know better how we should organize our own communities against whatever you think our enemy is or isn't. That's not how that works.
