I’ve heard that not wanting men in women’s spaces due to fear of male violence is as bigoted as not wanting to share spaces with blacks because of fear of crime. That specious analogy is a racist mess.

[–] Luckystar 12 points Edited

It's also a category error/logical fallacy.
TRAs want to maintain there being separate male and female facilities/sports/etc, but just allow people to pick which one they want to use. If we compare with racial segregation in the USA, that'd be like saying we should keep the white-only and black-only bathrooms, water fountains, sports leagues etc. but let people decide for themselves if they consider themselves black or white.

Or to look at it the other way around: What they are asking for is not actually "transgender inclusion" as they frame it. They want to completely abolish women's spaces and "integrate" them so there is one set of facilities that anyone can use regardless of sex.

Another huge reason why the comparison falls flat: Women's facilities were created by women, for the purpose of giving women safe spaces away from male predators, chances for women to participate in sports without being completely flattened by male competitors, etc.

By contrast, under the segregated USA, the "black only" spaces were created by whites, and the purpose was to keep black people from accessing nicer facilities they kept for whites only. The power structure and the purpose of the facilities is completely inverted.

It actually blows my mind how often they resort to the analogies to USA racial segregation when if one thinks about the comparison for more than 30 seconds it should be pretty obvious why the two situations are not only not comparable, but they're actually pretty much the exact opposite, in form and execution.