Firstly, I agree with OP's concerns and have appreciated the viewpoints she and other women of ERA have the courage to bring up.
Secondly, I have some thoughts on the nature of bans based on some of the discussion I have read here.
I think bans, like many other forms of punishment, are most effective when also followed-up with concise explanations to the offending party of specifically why the behaviour was unacceptable, how it is harmful, who it affects, etc. in an effort to provide a path for education and growth.
It's far too easy and far too common for people to just wait out a ban and never practice any self-reflection, continuing the same old behaviours as soon as they're allowed back in. So for me, a ban on its own as a punishment functionally serves to either give members a moment to cool off (considering they are only in a heated argument and not engaging in harmful behaviour), or to remove a harmful individual from the community. And I'm fine with both of those uses, but if we wish to look at bans as more than that - if we want to frame them as an opportunity for posters to grow and come back as better members of the community - I'd argue it's imperative that the team here provides that pathway in some fashion when the punishment is given or as a requirement to coming back.
I don't know if that's already a thing, or how that would logistically work, but in my experience if any site is to maintain and improve its standing as an open and welcoming platform for minorities/marginalized folks, something like this is beneficial. Especially on a platform with as varied and diverse a user-base as ERA.