Absolutely.

But think about what you're saying.

"Claire, why did you hit Paul in the nose?"

"Billy hit ME in the nose!!"

"Yes he did, and he's in detention. But what does this have to do with Paul?"

"Sanctity of noses needs to be MUTUAL. Billy withheld that from me! I've seen Paul say hi to Billy. So he DESERVED it. My nose needs to survive."

If you conceptualize the world as black and white, good and evil, with-us-or-against-us, Claire's actions make sense. To Paul, and any halfway reasonable external observer, Claire is unjustly taking out her deserved frustrations with Billy on Paul instead.

When you ask if it's too much to admit that trans women are not responsible for the actions of cis-male assailants, the answer is: that's a completely reasonable ask. They are by definition different groups. (It does not follow that if a trans woman asks for something, we automatically grant it without considering all other aspects of society, including what happens with cis-male / trans woman confusion.)

But when you ask if it's too much to ask to admit that trans women have nothing in common with cis-male assailants, then the answer is: that's way too much, because it's wholly unreasonable to ask people to deny reality (e.g. trans women and cis men are both typically AMAB, among many other things).

Even among topically relevant things, it's not a fair thing to ask a priori. Do all trans women have gender dysphoria? If no (usually the answer is no), then that's something in common with cis males. Have all trans women undergone sex reassignment surgery? Typical answer: no, this is not required as part of the definition of being trans. Do all trans women take gender affirming hormones (sufficient to alter their hormone levels to within the normal cis woman range)? Typical answer: no, this also isn't an absolute requirement for being considered trans. And so then it's reasonable to ask: do non-gender dysphoric, non-sex-reassigned, non-HRT-taking trans women exhibit male or female levels of sexual violence (or where in between)? Specifically, what is the mechanism by which it would assuredly be at female levels?

I'm totally open to evidence that, despite all these similarities with cis men, trans women with those characteristics are in fact behaviorally very different from cis men. But to admit this without any evidence?! No, that's an absurd ask.

I appreciate the considerably more reasonable tone you've taken in this post--an attitude like this one is, I think, not terribly offputting for people who aren't already solidly in an anti-trans or trans/trans-advocate camp. But as I've illustrated, it's not just the case that unconditional surrender should either be asked of trans people and their allies, nor should they ask this in return. There are issues that need detailed investigation, and while it's completely unreasonable to expect trans people to give detailed answers every time, it's not completely unreasonable to expect a link instead of a flat statement that something is never a problem (when in fact, the rate is not precisely zero).

If one intends to persuade people by reason, one should always have reasons on offer, even if one isn't going to give the reasoning oneself. Is it unfair? Well, yes, to an extent--one tends not to be asked for reasons to allow cis-heterosexuality. But this is always the burden when asking for changes: the advocates for change should have reasons for them that withstand counterarguments.