Yes. I studied in in college. There is more to an argument than solid reasoning. Some of us are interested in the consequences of the conclusions and what they entail or imply. All sorts of rock solid arguments can be made that lead to horrible and awful conclusions in politics or sociology. The Nazi regime had solid solid reasoning too dude. Their conclusions were also 'unpleasant'. But I'm not sure you'd be eager to endorse them for their reasoning?

Her takes aren't that interesting or nuance when you think them through. And a lot of her followers are TERFs and such. Again, not exactly who you'd want to endorse either, I'd hope.

Add Judith Butler and others. Rad feminism and extreme queer theory often leads to conclusions of violence, hate, and superiority complexes. And frankly, a lot of the people who follow these views... take on a far more crazy version of it than the original author even intends. I think Butler is actually better than her followers, but they lean into the problematic issues of her work and tend to answer those problems with calls to violence and hate rather than... thought. Butler also never really provides a positive apparatus, she just seeks gender as this trap we must condemn even though we can't escape it, which sounds deep I guess but pragmatically it's nonsense.

The problem with non-violent, more moderate takes on gender and feminism stuff is that it doesn't inspire people. People like being angry and condemning others. They don't like takes that force them to realize they too, are at fault and that for ever 'liberation' they undergo, they also lose something.