I think it's important to make a distinction between liberal feminism, correctly understood, and what I think of as nicey-nice feminism. Let's use prostitution as an example.
The classical liberal feminist may defend complete decriminalisation on a number of grounds, and do so in good faith (I think she's wrong but the arguments are worthy of taking seriously).
So, for instance, she might argue on the basis of harm reduction: that decriminalisation, allowing women to form collectives and bringing the practice into the open, helps to reduce rapes, assaults and murders and makes prostitution safer than it would be while underground. (I favour the Nordic model and would counter by arguing that a compare and contrast of Sweden, France and Ireland on the one hand and Holland and Germany on the other, suggests that full decrim actually makes the situation worse for prostitutes).
Then there's the individual autonomy argument. This goes along the lines of selling sex in and of itself is not harmful. It is of course harmful when one party is coerced - so let's put our efforts into stamping down on coercion and trafficking, not interfering with individual women's right to sell their bodies if they wish. (Again, I'd say that selling sex might be unproblematic in some sci fi world peopled by hermaphrodites where economic inequality didn't exist and it was just one way of earning a living among many - but in the real world where men hold economic and political power over women and can use their greater physical strength to carry out violent assault, selling sex, which is an activity where the buyers are overwhelmingly male and the sellers overwhelmingly disempowered socially and economically, can almost never be a free choice).
These are arguments worth having, and I wouldn't want to shut them down. And I believe liberal feminists who advance these arguments are coming from good motivations - harm reduction and the defence of women's right to bodily autonomy in all things including with whom and in what circumstances they want to engage in sex. (And there's a further liberal argument which would say the principle conceded in criminalising prostitution, namely interfering with how women run their sex lives, is the thin end of the wedge in a world with men on the religious right seeking to erode women's control over their fertility through abortion and contraception restrictions - again, an argument which we should take seriously).
But what I will never accept as feminist is the braying of the sex-pozzie lobby who don't debate, don't argue, don't engage, but simply bray "whorephobia", "kink-shaming", "slut shaming" and the like at the first mention of the Nordic model. They are not feminists, they are man pleasing twats and I'm more than happy to call them out on it.