I'm sorry--I don't understand how your reply is addressing anything I said.

You posed a cis-on-cis problem. But then you basically didn't address it except to say it was "kind of incriminating" if a man raised the point.

Then you pretty much granted that the cis-on-cis problem was a problem with the "upskirt" phenomenon.

So you think that the "usual refrain" is...right? That people should expect that cis men will use trans-accommodating rules to invade women's spaces to peek at/abuse cis women (and maybe trans women too)? And...we should all be okay with that? Or we should...oppose the rules? Or...what?

You spent almost all your original post talking about something else, and all of your reply to me talking about something else!

But what about the original question you posed (which I highlighted!)? Or did you not mean to phrase it as a cis-on-cis problem but rather a terf-misconception problem, and you never meant to address the cis-on-cis aspect in any depth at all (because you don't have to be a terf in order to wonder about that one)?