Take each case as it comes I suppose.
I think we're on a similar page here.
But if the problem is 'we can't reach this community's women unless we can assure them of a segregated space', is the answer to include or exclude (removing biases about why political parties do anything at any time)?
I think on this one, I'd lean towards 'include', as a way of giving women access to mainstream political discussion and at least not at a separate event from the men, so that the women have equal access to information being given to men I their community, so that at least they were getting the information unfiltered and not second-hand.
On the other hand, I have objected vociferously to attempted imposition of segregation, such as the posters around a religious event in North London asking women to walk only on one side of the street during the festival. And I wouldn't give two fucks whose shibboleth not touching unclean women was.
So for me it's not clear cut. It depends on the nature of the problem that's trying to be solved, and the implications indifferent courses of action.
I was involved in a really interesting effort once that had as one of its goals giving more power and agency to women in traditional Pacific island communities. The first step - giving them access to the idea things could be different - was often the most challenging, but always the most important. That's the perspective I'm coping from - a big bleeding heart for the tastes of some, and probably a bit culturally imperialist for the tastes of others (ie imposing my Western values of equality on cultures with different values).