Look, this is a simple argument if it wasn't politicized. This isn't really about women at all.

Human beings are gyno-centric. We build our subconsciously build our cultures around protecting the female egg, and these behaviors mistakenly are seen as being pro or anti woman. This is because if you have a village of 1000 women and 1000 men, if you sent the women to war and 900 died, it would be impossible to reestablish your village. However, if you sent 1000 men to war, you could easily repopulate with little to no drop-off. This idea gets transferred to the woman, but it's more about the egg and survival of the species.

This can look oppressive in cultures where violence is common. For example, in certain places in the Middle East, it may seem oppressive to have women cover their bodies from head to toe and be escorted by their husband or father. However, in a society where there's prevalence of violence against women, these oppressive measures actually help to protect the egg. In more modern cultures, these measures can be loosened. The West has built a strict set of codes that are enforced in largely non-biased institutions. The safer women feel, the more inclined society is to loosen the protection of the egg.

This gets taken to the furthest extremes by groups who don't value human reproduction, so it makes sense this finds a voice in the LGBTQ+ communities and climate alarmists. The less that is a societal value, the more likely a movement forms to remove all protections that might insulate the egg. Rape or discomfort is not really the driving force for these laws, but we think that because of political branding.

Personally, I think it's incredibly stupid to remove laws that protect the egg. It's short-sighted, anti-human, and potentially harmful to our society.

---