It’s not an assumption
“The point is of course that there will be a very tiny number of individuals who will seek to exploit this”
But that isn’t what the point is, because she can’t possibly know that the number will be “very tiny,” and the reality is that it almost certainly won’t be tiny, because once it becomes possible and legal and respectable for men to be in women’s spaces then more than a “tiny number” of men will rush to take advantage of the opportunity. Note that that is not saying that lots of trans women will do this, it’s saying that lots of men will do this, because they can. It can be true that few or no trans women do it, but that’s beside the point, because there will be no way to distinguish between them. How Sarah Wollaston can fail to see this is beyond me.
How often do you encounter Christians who fail to see the problems with Pascal’s Wager?
I submit it’s the same (non)cognitive process.
Well we just have to keep pointing it out.
Yep. It’s like all those debates during the “New Atheism” period. We can’t really change the minds of the faithful directly, but we can influence the minds of the audience.