There's so much wrong with this.
The scathing reference to the DV refuge which calls transgender males transgender males. Because what women who've been abused definitely need is to be gaslighted into thinking that people who are patently male are actually women 
The separate stats for "trans women" and c** women. (Oh, so when it comes to DV, we're suddenly allowed to categorise separately, are we? Strangely not when it comes to recording crimes though. Because that would demonstrate that "trans women" retain male patterns of violence.) The author states that for trans women, it's likely higher. No evidence. No acknowledgement that for actual women it may be higher too.
No acknowledgement of the death stats. 2 women a week murdered in the UK by a partner or ex partner. Male transgender people are among the least likely to be murdered in the UK.
No acknowledgement, as PPs have pointed out, of the huge amount of resources that Stonewall get which could go towards setting up services for trans people.
No acknowledgement of the fact that women who have been abused by males need services away from males - and that it's extremely easy to tell if someone is male. Voice, facial structure, height, bone structure, muscle mass, Adam's apple.
As usual, no suggestion of a third space - services that trans women could go to and be with the women who are happy to accept them as women, while the women who quite reasonably want to keep the exceptions ALLOWED FOR IN THE EQUALITY ACT (so perfectly legal) have services that are free of males.
Calling JK Rowling transphobic. I hope she fucking sues.
The suggestion that including males in women's services is "an opportunity to expand and diversify the movement and make it bigger and more full of solidarity."
Oh okay. Maybe we should just put women and men's services together full stop, right? That will expand and diversify the movement too. In fact maybe get rid of feminism and BLM and every other movement that focuses on a specific oppressed group and just have a kind of general equality movement. No? But why not? It will be bigger and have so much more solidarity! What could go wrong?
"Escaping domestic abuse is a potentially fatal experience for any of us........ Forty-nine percent of women killed by a partner or ex-partner arekilled less than a month after separation."
Ah, we're back on women now, no longer differentiating between c** and trans because trans women are one of the safest demographic when it comes to getting killed, so it's time to conflate again.
Then goes on to talk about black women and disabled women, and trans survivors. I'm not sure if that use of the word survivors is meant to suggest trans men (you know, the actual females, the ones we never talk about) might need some help too. But at any rate we're back to equating the struggles of black women and disabled women with the struggles of, er, male women.
Then she's back to saying we all have different experiences of abuse anyway. This is meant to be a justification for allowing male women into female services, but again seems more of an argument for simply lumping all male and female abuse victims together because why not?
"When we understand abuse as the gatekeeping of liberty, autonomy and self-determination, it is ironic that any survivor would position themselves as the gatekeeper of 'woman' or 'survivor'."
Oh, I'm fairly sure abuse can also be seen as gaslighting (telling someone black is white, male is female), DARVO ('you abused women are now complicit in the abuse of trans women') and a refusal to accept the word no. It isn't abusive to say that a man is a man.
"these 'feminists' are acting against the principles our liberation is founded on: autonomy, freedom and safety from violence."
Women are responsible for men's violence. Refreshing take.
"The abolition of fixed gender identities and their associated power dynamics liberates us all."
Yes. So why reify them into law?
"when this defensiveness manifests as shaming and policing trans people’s existence and liberties in the (misguided) name of our own 'safety', cis women must recognise what we are doing: hiding behind our survivorhood in order to behave abusively."
Fuck me. Did she really write that? Wanting to uphold the equalities act and preserve single-sex spaces is abusive. Saying no to men is abusive.
I can't even be bothered beyond that. It's a really nasty piece.