The drafting will be...interesting.
Going on the article, Helena Kennedy's brief was to look at a wider range of harms than abuse, harassment etc. HY talked about rape.
In order to include all women, woman would have to be defined as female sex. Otherwise women who claim to be men (WCM) would not be protected, or only under the general proviso that anyone who is taken for a woman would be covered. So potentially all men, not just those who claim to be women (MCW), would be protected.
If the perception of the prep is the test, adding MCW to the protected class would be redundant because they are covered anyway, like any man whom the perp thinks is a woman, eg in online interactions. MCW are also separately protected by the Hate Crime Act. So the only reason to specifically include MCW is to force team them with women. I think if enough noise is made about the unfairness and redundancy of specifically adding MCW to a measure which was supposed to address the mistreatment of women, amendments might be made. The climate has changed, even in Scotland. Labour, influenced by that change and the Westminster party, may not unquestioningly vote for it. Questions may be asked by journalists. FWS might find a way to challenge it. JKR might ride to the rescue again. (Yes, I know am reaching.)
With regard to the example HY gave - of a MCW being followed by a potential rapist down a dark alley - I just can't see it happening. I think a rapist looking for a victim would not take on a "woman" of the same sort of size and height as he is, possibly bigger, because he will want to attack a woman who is easily subdued, ie much smaller than he is. More vulnerable. He doesn't actually want a fight, even if he is confident he would win it. He wants to achieve dominance quickly. I'm guessing, anyway.
And my goodness me, if they are covered by misogyny law, MCWs will be reporting validation offences left right and centre. Will the police have time to investigate the offences against women?????