Greetings,
Though not necessarily wishing to get into a diatribe on the more extreme views of the more vocal feminists, perhaps a quick overview of this aspect of it may clarify my position. I realise that this may not really address your own points ( - when I've calmed down I'll try and do so...)
Feminism has gone through several phases or "waves", one of which is generally referred to as "radical" - it's also been called "neo-feminism", "gender feminism" (as in anti-male) and "extremist feminism" - which held sway in the 90s, although it has since gradually subsided, it still lies under the surface of "feminism".
It also has crossed the lines of the biological basis for gender due to a unfortunate set of circumstances - Gardner's "Nature via Nurture" and Pagel's "Wired for Culture" covers most of this ground.
[I'm intertwining the above sources with my reading of a number of other books, articles, etc, too numerous to mention here.]
In the 50s, science held that gender was nurture-only: the sex of the baby didn't matter - if the baby was brought up male, it would think of itself as male and
vice versa for females.
As a result of this view, male babies born with micro- or indeterminate genitalia underwent gender-reassignment surgery to turn them into girls. Needless to say, at puberty they required hormone treatment to grow breasts, etc. Their progress was followed throughout this process and due to the feedback from psychotherapy sessions, it became apparent that these "girls", far from thinking of themselves as female, actually thought of themselves as males, and had done so from a early age - despite having been brought up from babyhood as girls.
As a result of this, and to be safe, science did a
volte face in the 70s and declared that gender was Nature-only - it was hard-wired.
A couple of things happened in the 70s.
Firstly, Post-modernism came into being, which held that no truth is sacrosanct - this is in contrast to how it's normally perceived, that "there's no such thing as truth", along with it's logical conclusion that "all opinions are equally valid", neither of which is correct.
Secondly, the more radical feminists within the 60s movement, seeing their dream of gender-equality disappear in the face of a Nature-only basis for gender, rejected this "essentialist" explanation and, more generally, rejected science itself as "men's way of knowing", as a "masculinist epistemology", in favour of what they called "women's way(s) of knowing", or a "feminist epistemology": "lived experiences of women". As Haack notes in one of her essays, "Even if there were such a thing as 'feminist epistemology' - what makes them think that it's
right" (emphasis in original).
This is from where the claim that "Nature has nothing to do with gender" arose.
With further research, in the 90s science's understanding of the basis for gender altered to its current position: Nature via nurture.
The simplest way I can explain is to put it like this:
At conception, a may-pole appears in the genetic landscape determining what is and is not possible for that life-form. Nurture can modify it to the same extent as one can dance around the may-pole within the limit of the ribbon(s) but cannot (re)move the may-pole.
Since Nature still is seen as a important part of the process, the "radfems" still reject this as "essentialist".
It should also be noted that, as many women have gone into the social sciences at universities and colleges, where this attitude permeates the curricula, they've been exposed to this perspective, thus maintaining this rejection of science in favour of "women's ways of knowing" - "lived experiences (of women)".
For all intents and purposes, sociology is still stuck in the 50s on the basis for gender.
[Indeed, having recently read the 4th edition (2012) of "A Sociology of Ireland", where this "essentialist" explanation of gender was continuously questioned/rejected - including Baron-Cohen's research showing that gender differences in the brain appear as early as four weeks after conception - I felt at times that I was reading a book on dentistry where sections of it were written from the perspective that worms cause tooth decay! I found the rejection of the science excruciating. The one silver-lining on this dark cloud was that a suggestion that, going forward, Nature should be included in the social science's explanation for gender was mentioned towards the end of the section on gender.]
Another aspect of radical feminist dogma/rhetoric is their demand that all issues be viewed from the woman's perspective and since women are seen as "victims of male oppression", this means that all issues are seen from the perspective of a victim.
As a result, rape is perceived as being about power - and this is generally the view taken by the social sciences.
This is the victim's perspective - since a victim perceives rape as being about power (or rather their lack of it) this should not be surprising. Needless to say, from the perpetrator's perspective it's not about power but about the desire for sex ("I wanted to have sex").
If it were really about power, then rape statistics would be a flat-line across age groups - the elderly would be raped just as often as the young or middle-aged. This is clearly not the case - it's skewed towards youth: perhaps a better word would be "desirability".
You have other dogmatic claims that litter their literature:
"Sex is violence";
"Marriage is Church-sanctioned rape";
"Prostitution is rape that's paid for";
... and so on.
I apologise if I appear to have a bee-in-my-bonnet on this poison but I trust you'll understand given recent events in Ireland.
If the government actually addressed trafficking
per se instead of just one or other form of it (sex- or non-sex-related), I'd be delighted - but this ideologically-driven nonsense is utterly pointless and harmful at a time when the country can ill-afford a waste of tax-payers' money.
[*Sigh* - I'm feeling much better now...

]
Kindest regards,
James