Likely for a few reasons: the media around it tends to be quite sensationalised, which in turn sparks most of the discussions, culturally we're still quite in flux around gender so there is a wide range of opinion leading to more discussion with the media and power groups focused on the most polarised, and as others said, there are many places where the conversations had here would be immediately silenced whether because that space has a preferred view or because the whole topic is viewed as too political.
There have been in-person issues on this - many who try to organise women only spaces or events meet resistance by venues either because the venue owner's own views, contradictory information out there on the Equality Act, or because they view it as a potential safety risk to their staff if there are protests against it. That kind of thing gets people talking.
Let's stay on topic here. I'm talking about males)men, non identifying to LGBT.
Heterosexual men or men who don't identify as an acronym?
Gay men can be misogynistic. Bisexual men can be misogynistic. Asexual men can be misogynistic - I've run into all of these.
Being trans or any other gender diverse identity doesn't stop a man from bring misogynistic - I've run into these types too.
Straight guys do not have the monopoly on this - they may be the biggest group of men (this has been debated, particularly within cultures where being a bisexual man had enough drawbacks that many just identify as straight) so potentially most misogynists are straight men, but they aren't alone in being misogynists. I think it's important to discuss the misogyny within non-straight men to move away from ideas that sexual violence is about sexual attraction.
A man cannot be 'LGBT' - he can't be a lesbian, and no one can be gay and bisexual - those are two separate groups. That some people move between those identifiers as they figure themselves out doesn't change that.
LGBT started as an acronym for groups working in solidarity with each other, it was a choice done in full recognition that the groups have some things in common and also some things very different.
Watering LGBT down to a demographic, as something to 'identify' ignores all of that and dehumanizes people. When Stonewall UK chose to call gay men who had been murdered 'LGBT+ people', they were rightly torn apart for their heartlessness.
Ok, but still. Why isn't misogyny a hate crime?
Misogyny is a hate crime in some parts of the country. I've not seen much data on whether having done so has helped much, hate crime legislation in general is a bit woolly and not a solid marker of progress in any area.
Safe from being insulted, safe to be themselves, safe to use spaces that they've been allowed in/been welcome in for...ever!
I was in a group like for a while. I was pretty desperate for social spaces.
When I tried to talk to another women about a menstrual issue, it was interrupted by a trans woman discussing how they totally have periods too because mood swings. I felt insulted. I also felt concerned as it sounded like their hormone medication wasn't working well, but it wasn't safe to address that.
When I tried to talk about hot flushes, the conversation was pivoted to the issues they have with it on hormone medication. I felt I couldn't be myself.
I stopped going around the time my MIL died, I didn't have the energy, they were all aware - when I saw them six months later, having never said a word to me in the mean time, they tore me apart for my choice in reading material because they viewed the author as inappropriate. That the author was someone like me - American born, raised in an evangelical church, got out with all the risks of that - was irrelevant, to them, being in an evangelical church in the first place was enough that no one should ever read them, and everyone they knew on twitter agreed. Everything about me was made to feel unwelcome, I felt very unsafe.
I could go on - your rhetoric makes me question whether your space actually ensures women feel all the things you say you want the trans women to feel.
We did meet a TERF once.
Did they self identify as a trans-exclusionary radical feminist, or are you presuming that because on their talking points? Can you discuss what made them a radical feminist instead of any other branches of feminism?
The first time I got called a TERF, I was discussing having been violently sexually assaulted by a medical professional while pregnant and talked about how I didn't feel like a person to that professional, just a woman who needed to obey, and told using that language made me a TERF. I'm not a radical feminist - I've organised and worked with some, but my worldview doesn't line up so it would be inaccurate. Valuing single sex spaces and having concerns about the impact on the justice system and data accuracy does not a radfem make, there is more to it than that which gets erased.