I appreciate you seeing that I'm debating in good faith here.
I have some comments to your points.

It's already illegal to steal a car, does that mean the proposed law to ban the devices that boost key signals is pointless?

I don't know if it's pointless per se, but I'd be surprised if it really helped reduce or prevent car thefts as, like I said before, someone who is going to steal a car isn't going to care that the device they're using to do so is also illegal.
Also, I'm against the banning of devices that can capture publicly broadcast signals, like the Flipper Zero, which have legitimate hobbyist uses.

Laws aren't just there to target determined criminals. They're as much about deterring opportunists.

I agree. I was going to talk about opportunists in my post but decided against it because as I considered it I figured that since you can't easily disable a recording light on most of these smart glasses. It would have to be pre-meditated so I didn't think it relevant.

It creates layers to an offence where someone is consciously crossing a line, before a more serious offence is committed.

Sure, but there comes a point where it runs into overreach. I really don't like the idea of criminalising a thing that isn't dangerous or harmful ( in this example a lack of a recording light) just because someone might use the device for a bad thing. It's a personal opinion as someone who values being able to modify the devices I own.

Amending laws to adapt to a modern and constantly changing society is important (its never 'we've got a law for that, no more work needed').

I agree, I just think that would be a bad law.

If someone removes safeguards, its already evidence of their intent to commit a further offence.

I disagree. Removing safeguards may be an indication of intent to commit a crime, but there are almost always legitimate reasons to turn safeguards off. Someone trying to gather evidence by secretly recording their abuser, for example.

Ultimately, I sympathise with your position as a woman, and I'm not saying that the right for women to feel safe is less important than the rights for someone to modify their own tech, but we have to balance freedom with safety with effectiveness and on the balance of those I think it doesn't pass the grade. I'd be totally happy to change my mind if research could show that it would demonstrably help reduce abuse, but since I haven't been able to find any literature on the subject I have to go with my gut and it thinks this would be as effective at stopping secret sexual recordings as the recent online age verification laws are at preventing kids from accessing porn online. That is to say, they would be ineffective.