Its a logical consequence of decades of neo-marxist ideologues and central-planners in Washington DC attempting to redefine and re-write individual rights expressed in the Constitution, in as collective, political, group-based rights.
“Women have the right to financial independence and equal benefits.” Either they do or they do not. The first word of this sentence is in dispute and it negates the remainder. There is no physical advantage for a woman to switch to male and compete. There is significant advantage to transfer from male to female. Is this disparity legally protected?
Embedded in her answer lies a new kind of evil man that can oppress at will and without a call to responsibility. She should not be judge base on that answer alone.