My position is that radical feminism is brilliant for analysis of what's wrong, and shifting the overton window, but liberal feminism is more likely to achieve things in practice (even if it doesn't achieve as much as one might like it to).
But one thing I think doesn't get talked about enough is the fact that pro-trans, pro-prostitution "liberal feminism" is in fact a complete bastardisation of classical liberal political philosophy, and has much more in common with a hyper-individualist libertarianism than it does with liberalism. Classical liberal theory, from Mills all the way through to Rawls, is about balancing individual freedoms against one another, and the needs of individual actors, and producing fair rules for dealing with conflicting needs, wants, rights. Whether it's by "maximising utility", or "rule utilitarianism" or Rawl's "initial position", there's a recognition that not everyone gets everything they want, and it's about maximising freedom and fair allocation of resources, not about some impossible "everyone gets exactly what they want" free for all.
So it's quite consistent to be a liberal and against legalised prostitution (after all, most liberals are already against legalising selling kidneys). I think the argument goes like this:
"Okay, we're in the empty room of Rawl's initial position, discussing what sort of society we want to set up, in ignorance of where in that society we're going to end up. We know that some people will be poorer than others, and that poverty can drive you to do things you really don't want to because, put simply, you need to eat, and so do your children. We know that women are physically weaker on the whole and therefore more likely to end up on the receiving end of physical violence. We know they're the ones who gestate and breast feed, and are thus vulnerable, and taken out of the story as full economic members of society, for those times in their life. Therefore we need to have a social safety net - welfare payments, maternity pay, housing. And we also need to rule out certain economic activities - selling kidneys, bare-knuckle boxing, consenting to being beaten up for other people's entertainment, prostitution, being a paid gestational surrogate - because society as a whole does not need them, and the only people who'll be prepared to do them are people who are financially desperate, and we should be finding other ways to help them."
That's a classical liberal position that's anti prostitution.
We need to rescue liberalism from the libertarians who throw around insults like "TERF" and "SWERF". (They remind me of the lovely Ash and their deeply relaxed "Marxism" which embraces free market economics...)