I suppose that when it comes to feminism, and in particular the question of whether trans women are women and whether feminism is supposed to include them, I find a woman who can't imagine herself in the shoes of vulnerable women more maddening than a man who can't.
There's a part of me that would expect someone like Emma Watson to get why, for example, many women don't feel comfortable sharing changing rooms and rape crisis groups with biological males, more than I would expect Daniel Radcliffe or Rupert Grint to get it. It's always a bigger disappointment when women take this position. And it makes me think that a woman who takes this position is either privileged and too thick to understand her own privilege, or simply cares more about being seen to have the right opinions than she does about vulnerable women.
You're right though, I am holding women to a higher standard than men here. Especially the ones who claim to be feminists.
Emma Watson did that feminist book stunt where she went round hiding copies of The Handmaid's Tale for strangers to find. Have you tried reading The Handmaid's Tale, Emma? Could a trans woman have been enslaved as a Handmaid? Could a Handmaid have escaped her fate and become an Eye or a Commander by identifying as a man? Think, Emma. Use your brain.
Mind you, it seems Margaret Atwood herself is more concerned with not being cancelled than she is with real feminism these days. I get that a woman in her 80s doesn't necessarily have the energy or the appetite for facing up to the woke pitchfork mob, but I can't help but compare and contrast Atwood and Germaine Greer in that respect. Although who knows what position Germaine Greer would have taken if she had a very lucrative collaboration with Hulu? I guess she has less to lose than Atwood, and the kind of people who would want to cancel her aren't the kind of people whose opinions matter to her.