I think you raise an interesting point Lisa ; social work assess the ability of the person with primary care (usually the mother) to keep their child safe. It was the massive eye-opener to me that when xH was investigated for offences by the police, it was me who was investigated by SS (when I had done nothing wrong). I was the victim of abuse, not the perpetrator.
However, if you are talking about male-pattern violence, that implies it is an attribute of sex, rather than gender, I think. It is a way of upholding sex-based hierarchies. Violence may be a result of male socialisation and the gendered expectations of men in society, rather than innately of biology, but it is not their gender which makes men violent, because gender is not a thing which belongs to an individual - they are male sex, and socialised to a range of sex-based expectations (power, control over women), which feminists used to call gendered expectations (masculine/feminine).
I don’t know, I may be nit-picking and I am full of respect for you and what you are doing, so I hope my comment is not seen as unhelpful.
So, I think the argument is that, even if someone says they are identifying as female, but exhibits male-pattern domestic violence or abuse which puts women and children at risk, then they are expressing their socialised natal sex, not their assumed gender.
The counter argument would be that women are of course violent too, but that is a whole different argument which is not borne out by statistics or comparable.