We can’t for example shy away from the fact that gay women experience intimate partner violence more often than bisexual and heterosexual women (61%, 44%, 35% retrospectively). I feel more should be done to explore this.
People have explored it! A third of gay women who have expereinced intimate partner violence have experienced it in an opposite sex relationship (from a man). When that is taken into account, the proportion of female on female interpartner violence is slightly less than that of male on female interpartner violence. Still noteworthy that violence happens between women too - but the original figure is misquoted and misquoted and it undermines any arguments in that area people might have.
Emotional manipulation, parental alienation, reputation damage, blackmail, low level physical or verbal sexual harassment, bullying, false accusations etc are also forms of abuse. They aren’t as easy to measure as physical violence but they are all forms of covert aggression. Women typically engage in covert forms of aggression rather than open confrontation (there are solid evolutionary reasons for this) but we hardly measure these.
Women might engage in covert agression more than women engage in physical/explicit agression. However, there is no evidence that women engage in covert agression more than men engage in covert agression. You seemed to be implying this was the case but the choices aren't be physically agressive V use covert agression. Physically abusive/agressive people also use covert aggression - this is true when men are beating their partner behind closed doors and telling friends and family they are crazy. Likewise men and women that aren't physically agressive can also use these "covert agressions".
It is natural to want things to be "symmetrical" - Men do X bad thing, therefore there must also be a Y bad thing women do. But, when it comes to (for example) "reputational damage" - if you want to argue that is a female thing you need to tell Kendrick Lamarr (and Drake) and all rappers they are in fact women. (Also Putin and those running propaganda machines, Liberian mercenaries, boxers slagging each other off before a fight, Emile Zola, Isaac Newton and the Royal Society, Elon Musk, Mathew Hopkins, boys that say their ex girlfriend is "for the streets", men who post revenge porn, men who post AI porn of celebrities). Women can also take part in "reputational damage" - its much more of an even playing field than physical violence. But women don't do it more than men. As you say it is "harder to define" and I think that makes it easier to "see" it when women do it, but completely ignore when men do. (Also there is no indication as to whether the thing being said is true, which also matters in real life).
And "parental alienation" is a pseudoscience that was based on no real evidence, and has led to children being forced to live with paedophiles so less of that.
On top of that we have the institutional measures that elevate girls unfortunately, in reality, often at an expense of boys. Anyone who’s ever worked at school knows what I mean.
The "sit and listen to the teacher then do some reading" model of schooling has existed long before girls were even educated. It was often argued that girls couldn't cope with the same educational rigours as boys. ironically, when girls were then given the chance - in the 20th century, they started to do better than boys. No-one rigged the system against men, girls just happen to be better within that pre-existing system. I agree disenfranchisement of boys is an issue - but more boys are hitting basic literacy rates, more boys are going to university than they were 70 years ago. Its just that proportionally, less than girls so to you it seems they are doing worse. If you want to help struggling boys, target them rather than arguing that its because girls are doing well.