The article may or not be clickbait, but sexual assault by women clearly is a problem to what ever extent it exists. If you're a child and molested by your mother and no one believe you because of what are, lest we forget, completely sexist assumptions that women are nurturing and protective homemakers incapable of exhibiting the full gamut of human behaviours - then that's a big fucking problem. And to suggest that problem does not exist, to whatever extent, is wrong.
Underpinning these discussions is often the odd idea that addressing culturally mandated male sexual abuse (which is incontestably most of it) and addressing culturally un-mandated female sexual abuse are somehow in conflict.
And then you get people saying really odd things like:
The only way I can see this working is bringing male sexual violence against women and girls way way down first.
How would that play out in practice exactly? As the police or social services receive allegations of sexual assault would they have a male perps pile and a female perps pile and say 'right, we'll look at the male perpetrated cases first and get round round to the female perpetrated ones later'? Or would they just deal with every case as they receive it and with equal seriousness?
So prioritisation is a bit of a dumb premise for a debate at best, and at worst carries the suggestion that a child victim of a female abuser should be de-prioritised for ideological reasons. And if that ain't an abuse of feminism (and one that plays right into the hands of MRA scum) then I don't know what is.