@lxo @light @quasi @Gnomeshatecheese

I have to redirect your claim of "no interest in pursuing the truth, only in pursuing a point of view" right back at you, because I think your entire reasoning is based on abstract ideas that are unproven and misaligned with reality. Let me address the key points.

> it would be informative to contrast with statistics about sexual assault in other spaces in which nudity is present, also without a sexual connotation, and potential victims are not prevented from asking for help, such as nudist communities, and other human societies that don't make clothing mandatory, or that don't segregate naked people into hiding their bodies

Why? This is not the society we live in. Are you more interested in preventing harm and improving women's lives right here and now, or are you interested in chasing some theoretical utopian ideal, putting women under risk of physical and sexual assault in the pursuit of that ideal, which may or may not be reached one day? Do you intend to force nudist culture on women who feel uncomfortable with it? What do you intend to do if a woman says "I simply don't consent to male strangers seeing my naked body, period"?

> I suppose you'd then conclude that what makes potential victims vulnerable in such spaces is the walls that enable aggressors to hide and make it more difficult for victims to ask for help.

No, men also sexually harass women in broad daylight. There have even been cases where a woman cries for help while assaulted by multiple men, only for more men passing by to join in on the assault.

> it's the mandated separation of the potential victims from others who could help protect them

This sounds like you're asking for women to be chaperoned by "good men" to keep the "bad men" at bay. Women want to be able to go out and about independently. The availability of female-only locker rooms etc. is of great importance to enable this. What you're suggesting would set women's rights back by a century in actual effect, because it's based on naive ideals and not reality.

> rules that won't stop someone who's out to break rules

The rules work, as proven by the statistics. Predatory men are often opportunistic. They don't go out of the house thinking "today I will enter a women's locker room to assault women." They enter a unisex locker room, see a woman that makes them feel lustful, and then they act on base instincts because they're immoral.

By the way, this line of yours is such a common talking point ("men who want to assault women won't obey the rules anyway") that it feels like someone sat down with you and coached you on what to think and say about this topic. I urge you to apply some skepticism to these "pro-trans" talking points that completely disregard women's well being.

> it's the culture of body shaming, of misassigning sexual connotations to nudity, that drives people away from e.g. changing in public spaces where they could be actually safer, and forces them to enter and use the unsafe traps that attract aggressors and offers them safe hiding space.

Again, it sounds like you want to force women into nudism. And again, as the statistics show, it's the unisex changing rooms in which around 90% of changing room related assaults happen. Sex segregation *evidently* makes women more safe, not less.

> while violence is often associated with individuals with higher levels of testosterone, a large number of such individuals don't really fit your description:

(I'll address each separately)

> at least some 10% are attracted to other men

Women have no way of easily assessing whether a man is gay or not. Expecting them to detect gay men and allow them to use women's locker rooms is not practical.

> some 20% are too young to be a threat

Mothers often take young boys into women's locker rooms, bathrooms, etc. and that is of course not a problem. This isn't really relevant.

> some aren't heavier or stronger

The difference in the *ranges* of strength and size means that for any male you pick, there will almost certainly be some females who are smaller than him. A man could be merely 160cm and 60kg, yet he might be encountered by a woman who's merely 150cm and 50kg, so he could still be an intimidating presence to her.

> most are far more likely to defend a potential victim from an aggressor than to be an aggressor

Again, do you expect women to be chaperoned by men? Or should they hope for some "good man" to be around coincidentally, and protect them while they're using a locker room? We want to enable women to be independent, not needing constant chaperoning like it's the middle ages.

> and some 5% you'd mistake for women and force them to share the female-only spaces

Probably under 1%, and no, I didn't say female-looking individuals should be forced into female-only spaces. The question is who is *allowed* to enter female-only spaces, which are reserved for women.