I'm sure it'll have been covered by previous posters, OP, but the examples you've cited aren't the same:
The first was calling for violence against women by a biological male. It was saying that women who believe that biological males shouldn't be allowed unquestioning access to female spaces should be punched in the face.
The second was biological males calling for women to be murdered, again for believing that biological males shouldn't be allowed into female -specific places.
It's worth noting that gender critical beliefs are protected by law. These males were advocating violence against a group of women with protected beliefs. Male violence against women is a huge problem in society, on the grounds that, generally speaking, men are physically bigger and stronger than women. That's why we have sex-segregated spaces and sports in the first place.
The third was from a man, saying that if a male, regardless of how they're dressed or identify, is in a female-only space, women should punch them in the testicles as a last resort. A punch from a woman to a male's testicles is unlikely to do the same kind of damage as a male's punch to a woman's face, or decapitation.
Again, it's worth noting that the recent Supreme Court ruling has clarified that transwomen are male, and there's been additional comment from the government that they should either use the facilities for males, or unisex facilities. I think that the vast majority of people would agree that anyone with penis and testicles shouldn't be in the female facilities in the first place, even if they're fine with post-transition surgery transwomen sharing those spaces.
So, in short, your first two examples were males inciting violence against an entire group of law-abiding women, whereas the third was a man inciting violence against a hypothetical criminal male if other non-violent measures didn't remove them. In the case of the first and the third, both were arrested. The first was cleared, it'll be interesting to see what happens in the case of the third.
Basically, context matters. I think what gender critical feminist generally want is strengthened legal protections to protect women from males (however they identify), because whilst we believe that men and women are equal, we'd be stupid not to acknowledge that men have a physical advantage in terms of strength and size - which is why, historically, women have been discriminated against, treated like property, etc. There's also been a lot of high profile cases about 'transwomen' committing sex offences - some will argue that they're men using the trans umbrella to commit their crimes, others will argue that they're women, and their identity should be respected regardless. Women don't want to be put in the position where they're in a vulnerable space with Schrödinger's rapist, but they're just expected to put up with it to 'be kind'.
For me, there's sex and gender - sex is biology, gender is the societal expectations that comes with that biology, which varies around the world. The former is immutable, the latter is not - but being gender non-conforming is not the same as being the opposite sex.