Thank you for the detailed reply! I want to reiterate that I agree with a lot of GC feminist talking points/issues, I understand where you guys are coming from.

It's the conclusions for specific contemporary (and sometimes even historical) questions, especially the trans debate, and the absolutist idea of a universal patriarchy that I think are too narrow to bring radical feminism and the entirety of the LGB community together.

I also understand the difference between radical and liberal feminism, but I think your conclusion that the latter is a "men's rights movement" does three things: It diminishes the complicity and personal agenda of women; it denies the link between intersectional feminism/identity politics and the preceding radfem ideas of a patriarchal system and an existing oppression hierarchy; it ignores the fact that (gay) men are just as much under attack in liberal feminism as they are in radical feminism.

I didn't want to debate radical feminism or the patriarchy in their entirety, but just one thing to think about because you mentioned it: As an example, you talked about your grandmother and restrictive voting rights. Of course this was and in some countries still is a woman's issue. But that's one aspect of many, because while women couldn't vote on principle, many men couldn't either and when they finally could, the price was high. Before all British men were allowed to vote, poor young men had to be wounded in millions and to die in hundreds of thousands in a war from which all women were exempted solely by reason of their gender. Without any voice in the matter, every adult male was subject to military law. If he didn’t go quietly he could be forcibly removed from his home and transported to the front where, if he protested that he couldn’t see any sense in that insane conflict, he might be subjected to a cursory field court martial and executed by firing squad. Roughly 60% of adult men were then entitled to vote. Of course one can argue that wars are a product of the patriarchy, too, which I would disagree with as it's more of a human issue in my mind.

Another thing: You say that almost every man doesn't understand a woman's fear of male violence. I'm not a woman, I can't "truly" know what your POV is like. But I and every man I know, especially but not exclusively gay and gnc men, more than understand the fear of male violence. We experience it first hand since the day we're born. We're men, not fighters, defenders or survivalists.

Do (radical) feminists understand female violence, too? Conflating all men as "THE patriarchy" is a too simple world view that robs vulnerable men of a voice in my opinion. To stay on topic, I think that's an obstacle to overcome in the relationship between Radfems and (L)GBs. Gay men are no less complicit than feminists in enabling sexist gender ideology, don't get me wrong. I definitely see that. But that doesn't mean that gay men have universal power over women, or that they don't have to fear homophobic women and their agendas. More than once in my life I had to suffer violence in many different shapes or forms incited by a homophobic woman. She might not have performed the blow herself, but it was a consequence of her privilege, her power and her hate. Radical feminism does not take that into consideration. I'm ok with that, don't get me wrong: one of the many things I respect is their radical therefore exclusionary definition of feminism. It's not gay (as in: gay men) friendly, and it doesn't have to be because it doesn't act like it is. As long as we respect our very different POVs and problems and therefore recognize that some of our conclusions are bound to clash, we can tackle the issues that we agree upon.