This article is very stupid but I think useful in that it articulates the angle of fundamentally reactionary, sex-binary-conformist feminism in a clear way by applying its two contradictory stances on gender nonconformity... to the same person (Radclyffe Hall), arguing that A) Gender nonconforming women are functionally men, or want to be men, are doing "toxic masculinity" or are only nonconforming to cope with sexism... but also B) Trans men and other gender variant "biological women" (what editor did that get past..!?) have to be reclaimed as women, which is what they "really" are, regardless of their self-identification or extent of their gender nonconforming behavior.
In concert, this basically works to ensure that only fully conforming (~biological~) women are the object, concern, and correct "enactors" of feminism, because there is always a sense in which category A or category B need to be "corrected" and brought back into the fold. The obvious end of this line of thought is to stitch gender roles back together with the sex binary by pathologizing any difference; the only reason anyone I think should be "a real woman" thinks otherwise or does not comport herself in a sufficiently feminine manner is because she's mistaken, politically suspect, has something wrong with her, is not healthily coping with the world etc. Everyone AFAB really does like wearing dresses, being called Maugeritte, or going to condescending dinner parties deep down inside, or would without the messy externalities. Of course being a self-proclaimed "invert" does not map 1:1 to our current sense of completely being a trans man or being a lesbian; however the angle the author takes interestingly ends up drawing on both transphobic and homophobic tropes even more than insisting on one would by simultaneously trying to treat its object as both.... lol
Less obvious but also indicative of this attitude is the line where the writer stops just short of calling the other subject of the essay a faghag, not just for being into "homosexual" men but "effeminate" men in general, which in the author's eyes may as well be the same thing and is an obviously doomed and embarassing endeavor, which can only be discussed in a sort of salacious, leading way... Surely no "normal" or even "self-respecting" woman would lower herself to hanging around other gender mis-fits; again, something is wrong with her. Maybe if she'd spent more time going to dinner parties with people who obviously didn't respect her preferences (by addressing her as Mrs. (Husband's last name)), instead of hanging around with effeminate guys she would be more ok with herself, which, from this biologically deterministic angle means simply silently bearing any desire for life to be different in service of a united front glorifying normie cis womanhood.
Like idk overall it's just very revealing of a weird jealousy this strand of feminism seems to have over its increased irrelevance as it focuses only on the status of normative womanhood, where the things meant as just thought experiments or evocative theorizing are actually being done and won by expanding models of queerness. That men are responsible for less housework in a society that reproduces itself via the nuclear family, even when he and his wife have the same jobs, is too much of a boring, obvious observation that feminism still beholden to naturalizing this divide inherently cannot do much but armchair psychologize about. Anyways. Wonderful things happen when weird women and effeminate men get together, sexually, emotionally, politically! Imo.