A woman being advised to punch a man in the genitals, if she finds herself trapped in a woman-only space with him, is simple self-defence. The man has already violated the law by being there. He has violated her safety and dignity. He knows this, and she knows this. They also both know that even if he is wearing a dress and abusing oestrogen, he will always be stronger than her and is capable of physically overpowering her. Her only hope of getting past him is to go for a vulnerable area, like the balls.
@Christinapple is determined to frame this as "people" attacking other "people" for no reason. But in the real world, we all understand that what's being discussed is women doing the little we can to defend ourselves against men. If a man has entered a space where he knows women are vulnerable - despite knowing the law forbids it - then, yes, women are going to assess him as a threat. If that man is an autogynephile, whose fetish has become so extreme it has consumed his entire life and he must now enact it 24/7, then women will evaluate him as even more of a threat. We don't see the dress and lipstick and oestrogen man-boobs and think "Oh, a fellow women! Nothing to fear!" Quite the opposite, in fact.
You can try to frame this survival instinct as prejudice all you want, @Christinapple , but outside of TRA echo chambers, no-one is ever going to agree with you. Being wary of strange males who violate our boundaries, and being creeped out by sexual fetish, are instincts that have protected women for generations. They're not some terrible prejudice without solid foundation. You can guilt trip all you like, but this stuff is life or death for us, and you won't get very far.
So. A woman punching a creep in the bathroom? Self-defence. Glad we cleared that up. Now let's look at the examples of TRA-on-TERF violence you think are the same thing.
A man punching a woman because he doesn't like her opinion? Not self-defence.
A group of men trying to crush a woman in a crowd, because they don't like her opinion? Not self-defence.
A group of men trying to break through police protection and assault a woman speaking words they don't like? Not self-defence.
A man throwing a container of soup (which could be acid, for all she knows in the moment) over a woman, to try and frighten her out of speaking words he doesn't agree with? Not self-defence.
And finally we ask ourselves: you've brought up two men you view as dangerous in this thread. You've invited us to compare them, so I will. Graham Linehan vs 'Sarah Jane' Baker. Which man is most likely to make the leap from words to violence? Which man is the greater threat? Is it: the comedian whose most 'violent' act is throwing another man's phone on the ground in a scuffle? Or is the mentally-unstable man who has served years in prison for violently raping and murdering a woman? In the real world, we all know which of these men is in "five armed officer" territory.
What do TERFs want? Well, it would be nice if your lot would stop being so disingenuous, for a start. It would be nice if you recognised the reality of violence against women. And it would be nice if you'd stop with the pathetic false equivalencies. Graham Linehan has not "incited violence against trans people and their supporters", and you know it. Your own side has been disgraceful, and you know it. You just want to play the victim and shut down women and our hurty, hurty words, because you can't stand to hear them. We see through it and we're sick of it. Cut out the DARVO and find some integrity. That's what we want.
Don't worry. We won't hold our breath.