No, YOU don't understand constitutional fundamentals. I wasn't going to bother to lay it out but apparently, it's necessary. It's a tort to publicly defame someone with untrue statements and is defamation per se when you defame someone in relationship to their profession and claim that they did something immoral or illegal.

https://www.findlaw.com/injury/torts-and-personal-injuries/what-is-defamation-per-se-.html

The tort of defamation (or defamation of character) occurs with false statements, either spoken ("slander") or written ("libel"). False statement of fact injures a person's reputation. The First Amendment does not protect these statements. Some types of false statements are so damaging that they are defamatory on their face — "defamation per se." Defamation per se differs from "defamation per quod," where the court must look at the statement's context. Because defamation law divides offenses into libel and slander, the law recognizes instances of slander per se and libel per se.

Here are the four categories of defamation per se:

Saying that someone committed a crime or immoral conduct

Saying that someone had a contagious, infectious, or "loathsome" disease

Saying someone engaged in sexual misconduct or was unchaste

Saying something harmful about someone's business, trade, or profession

It's pretty clear that stating that a woman is actually a man and that she is therefore fraudulently engaged in her profession - and as a result she has been harassed and threatened because of those is defamation per se.

I've had about enough of your Dunning Kruger so if you have further thoughts on this, direct them to someone else who has actually studied the law. I'm on to other things.