Except...they didn't? These things were not put in place for the safety of the majority, and they certainly weren't put in place because the vulnerable groups asked for said protections. Sooo...what's the point of lying that this was "perceived" in a way it wasn't? Except because you know your entire argument is bullshit?

Let me spell this out to you, and I'll try to make it simple enough that even a trans rights activist will be able to understand it: Women have been preyed on and endangered by men for all of history, to the point of their freedoms, safety and privacy being severely violated this fact. That is why they needed and demanded protections in the form of female spaces, so they could function normally in the public sphere. This was not the case for racial segregation that was imposed onto black people against their will and due to ideas of white supremacy, nor for the lack of disabled spaces resulting from neglect and lack of visibility of disabled people's needs.

Now, using your ass-backwards logic, you could argue that having to have disabled parking spaces and ramps is no different from stoning a woman for being a witch, since both laws are in place because "the majority perceives it that way". Gosh, it's almost like there's more to this whole thing than just "what the majority says".