Hmmm. I realise I will probably be taking this thread on a tangent somewhat, but it has meandered considerably already.
I am I believe older than most of the contributors to this thread and have been involved in some form or other of feminist activism for over 30 years. That doesn't give me any special status or authority, but I have had the opportunity to observe the evolution of the feminist movement from both a personal and a theoretical basis. I don't assume nor expect that anyone else will agree with my impressions.
Thinking back 20 - 25 years ago, I joined together with feminists who came to the movement by many paths and represented many different facets of feminism. There were often lively discussions and sometimes disagreements. Collectives could be hell or heaven depending. :) However, there seemed to be at least a willingness to focus on common ground we did share. Yes, it did include radical feminists, or at least women who saw themselves as radical feminists at the time.
I can never recall, however, any examples where representatives of any section of the movement trying to exert their superior status, claim exclusive entitlement to the term "feminism," nor condemn other feminists as ignorant, fakes, puppets of the patriarchy or in the other patronising terms I seem to hear from some quarters now. I've pondered a bit where the chauvinistic approach of some radical feminists might be coming from. As I said, I don't expect they or anyone else will agree on my "take," but what the hell, here it is!
I think in times of economic austerity and social unrest, it's not unusual for social, political and even faith movements to "turn more inward" than they would in less unsettled times. When the world outside is insecure, you want to know who you can trust and take comfort from being amongst other believers. To be sure who is "one of us," movements become more prescriptive about what behaviours and beliefs are acceptable and not allowed. Another way to mark who is "us" is to define who is "them," and a quick and easy way to promote unity is to depict "them" and the characteristics they embody as inferior or even better, as threatening to "us" in some way. Sometimes, condemning "them" appears to become more important than promoting whatever it is that brought "us" together as a movement!
My hunch is that this is what is happening recently in some quarters of radical feminism.
I think trans women serve as that "unifying pariah" for some radical feminists at the moment. Transmen are also sometimes targeted (but more along the lines of patronising and pitying - they are all just misguided/deluded Lesbians who refuse to accept their "true" identity who are exploited by the male medical establishment,) and also bisexual women, who've demonstrated that they can have sexual/romantic relationships with women so have absolutely no excuse for having any sexual/romantic interest in men.
It's interesting that Beachcomber says she doesn't understand the idea of feminism being a "journey," that it is something you either accept, chapter and verse, or you don't (and therefore have no right to call yourself a genuine feminist.) The approach makes me think of some fundamentalist Christian denominations that insist the only way to salvation is to follow their creed without deviation.
It's also interesting that there seems to be the suggestion from Eats and Beachcomber on this thread at least, that having that "faith" in the ideals of radical feminism is more important than having evidence to substantiate what you believe.