am just questioning why there’s a special exemption for sufficiently bad men
I've always also found that interesting in wondering whether HQ agree that someone sufficiently 'bad' doesn't deserve the courtesy of others jumping through linguistic hoops - which agrees that it is a courtesy dependent on reciprocation that in some circumstances is acceptable to refuse - or whether a man who is sufficiently 'bad' shouldn't be seen as 'properly trans', an argument the TRA lobby have used before now. Particularly for example in the Karen White case.
Which seems just as illogical, because Karen White is as trans as anyone else is. The whole point of this (and no point in talking about self ID any more because it's been slid in by stealth anyway) is that any male who says he is, must be counted as trans. With all the entry to women's spaces that comes with it. Regardless of whether that person is lovely and a pillar of society or a sex offender/ murderer.
Which proves the point that TW cannot be counted in the same set as biological women in every single way without exemption, because the biological women have specific needs and rights too that involve separation from biological males.