Some laws are clarifications of overlaps of other laws that create wiggle room. In this instance the queer panic defense is still being used in court rooms and whether or not it passes as legit is basically up to whichever judge you get, how eloquent the defense lawyer is and how sympathetic to queerphobia the jury is.

If this firestorm of factors does occur you get a situation where there is ruled a legitimate self defense claim because a queer person existed near you.

Trans women experience this way more often than they should just more often then not there’s no charges pressed. A cis straight guy approaches them to hit on them (oft times unwanted), they get clocked as trans during the encounter, the guy freaks out and no matter what the trans person does be it reject, deflect or reciprocate, the guy becomes abusive or violent. The thing that the guy is reacting to is his own homo/transphobia, not the behaviour of the trans person he approached. They could be the nicest, meekest trans woman alive who is just trying to escape the awkward situation and the abuse would still happen. There’s a lot of people out there who would find the cis guy’s reaction way more relatable than the trans woman’s experience so that recipe for the trans panic defense still sometimes finds all the nessisary ingredients. The law leaves much less room for interpretation of what constitutes a valid point to argue self defense narratives.

Yes

Nope. “You were afraid so you shot him in the back even though he was unnamed” …

is legal in some states, especially sunset removed ones where the judges are stacked and racist