Yes, Prawn I agree that we need to work with allies where we find them and I don't think anything I've said suggests otherwise.
I do think we should be aware of the broader ideological context of publications, websites, conferences etc. (particularly as they relate to issues of women's rights and gay/lesbian rights) when sharing them, as the best weapon transactivists have against women who might otherwise organise, protest, speak out about female erasure, is the accusation of bigotry/transphobia/privilege. I don't want to fuel that fire where it can be avoided.
When we come across something that eloquently makes the points we wish to make, yet also strengthens the perception that the only people who oppose the trans agenda are all the same right wing Heritage Foundation types who opposed "women's lib" and "the gay agenda" in previous decades, we might each want to weigh up the pros and cons of liking/sharing/referring others to it. And in order to weigh it up, we need to know a little about the ideology of the publication / conference host. That's all.
For me, with lots of Americans among my social media connections, who will all be familiar with the HF, I won't be sharing it because I think more people would see all the HF branding and think "yup, when she started sounding TERFy I wondered if she was going right wing in her old age, guess she is, that explains it" than would actually sit through an hour of speeches and hear how much sense they're all talking. In a UK context where the HF branding wouldn't give off such an unmistakable "Ultraconservative conversion therapy advocates" vibe, maybe I'd weigh up the pros and cons and share the video. Or maybe knowing a little about the HF would mean I'd preface the video with an attempt to preemptively address some of the likely responses.
Anyway... It's an interesting discussion but I did not mean to detract from discussion on the content of the video itself, so I'll stop going on about it.