The Second Wave would never have taken off the way it did if women could never have met to consciousness-raise or organise free from the presence of males.
I’ve done a LOT of feminist organising and time after time I’ve witnessed the effect of male presence: either 1) their own inevitable centering of themselves or 2) the point at which a woman pushes for something that is a bridge too far, in the male view.
Hayton is attempting to define just where that bridge too far is: right at the place short of where we fear assault. Which set us up for all sorts of questions re: data on assault cases (which is nearly impossible to find for reasons we all are already aware of) and a comparison of the risk TW’s feel in male spaces vs. the risk we are in in female spaces.
Because so many men in general refuse to accept the level of male violence against women, this is an argument that puts us on the back foot right from the start.
And Tinsel is right: feminism is for females, and it’s there to support the wives and children harmed by male action, which includes the action of gaining a name for oneself as the voice of reason on an issue that, fundamentally, stands on a platform of unreason: it still remains impossible, no matter what medical or surgical technique is employed, to change sex.