"Does this bother anyone else?"

If NOW is trying to bring the difficulties transgendered M2F of F2M people have appearing as females or being genetically/anatomically female but appearing male with being assaulted, harassed, etc., because of that, then it's fine, insofar as one believes separating a crime's motivation for greater attention from the crime itself is the right thing for law enforcement to be doing. (Personally, I think motivation for a crime is a valid consideration when deciding whether to pursue prosecution or assign punishment if guilt is found, and it's been that way throughout legal history; controversies arise when the matter of *what* to be concerned with in the criminal's motivation comes up.) But if they are as they have reportedly been doing trying to get "being female" made into a hate crimes category rather than simply "gender", then that's another. But even so, I *would* be fine with "gender" as a category myself if I could be reasonably sure that indeed, such a criterion would be evenly applied, or that law enforcement would at least try to do so; but I doubt it would be.

As with other hate crime prosecutions, the US legal system seems to value some kinds of victims within a class of victims as being more important to try to cover with such laws than others. For example, the legal system is much less likely to prosecute someone assaulted at some kind of, for example, religious freedoms protest if the assailed person were an atheist vs. one who is not. Likewise where ethnicity is a concern, depending on locale and local politics, an assault victim of ethnicity __fill-in-the-blank__ may not see the benefit of their state's hate crimes law(s) even if they can prove (via recordings from others or made by oneself using smartphones, etc.) that ethnic insults or epithets were used during the attack. It's such selective application of these kinds of laws which have caused many in the US to dismiss them as being an instrument of selective enforcement combined with political correctness (defined in the context of time, place, politics, and prejudice) leading to not-so-equal justice under the law.

It's too bad, really. The road to Hell is too often paved with good intentions. But it's a bit dramatic of me to say that the mis-use of hate crimes laws or selective use of same is on par with travelling the road to Hell. It's more accurate to say it's the road to the creation of much "less equal" justice than the laws' original conceivers intended.