No, that's not my answer at all.

My answer is to take people's concerns seriously and address them seriously, but base the responses in reality as much as possible rather than supposition (or worse, right-wing scaremongering).

I'm all for actively working to reduce sexual violence, through increased prosecution and other measures.

But you seem to be arguing like this:

Them: "Hey! You broke the lock on my car door!"

You: "People break into locked cars."

Them: "Yes but it's even worse if I can't lock my car!"

You: "Car break-ins aren't investigated or prosecuted."

Them: "Yeah, I know! Seriously! Let's prosecute the thieves!"

You: "So we agree. All good, then."

Them: "No, the lock on my car door is still broken! It's still worse for me!"

People who think that enabling trans access to restrooms poses a cis-on-cis danger are making an argument in almost perfect analogy to the above. Maybe here it's clearer why your style of response is completely inadequate?

Maybe the car door is still locked, it just locks a little differently; that'd be a good reply if it was true. Maybe we know that car thieves are never dissuaded by locks anyway--it's just a non-issue; that'd be a good reply if it was true. Maybe there's a really important good that can come from unlocked cars and you acknowledge the loss and sacrifice but point out it's worth it; that'd be a good reply if it was true. Maybe there's a ton of theft but really there's so little theft from cars that nobody should worry about it; that'd be a good reply if it was true.

But you're just deflecting.