For an unrelated reason I had to check up some things from Raymond's Transsexual Empire and had a quick re-read.
It is so bleak and anti-feminist it is not funny. It offers no hope of change for women, in fact women have to fight endlessly to maintain their existing position

Though it is (like all such books) turgid in the extreme a clear theme comes out:
(1) Women will always be oppressed by men because they can bare children.
(2) Men are totally, and in every way, superior to women.

(3) Equal rights mean nothing, if there are 100 political reps, and 50 are women, men will still dominate them totally (yes she actually said that).

Therefore women have only 2 choices:
(a) Make the 'patriarchal bargain' and get the best deal they can.

(b) Retreat into a nunnery like existence (called 'separatism'), don't have sex with men and only associate with women in a 'protected' environment.

Option (a) is the exact same thing right wing women (as documented by Dworkin) do. Since their only power is procreation and rationing sex then they have to ruthlessly guard those to get the best deal for themselves from men.

Thus any 'competition' to their ability to deliver children to men or their monopoly over sex has to be ruthlessly stamped out. Such as IVF, sex workers, porn... even contraception and abortion since these reduce the 'cost' of sex to men.

Since women are in competition with each other to get 'the best deal' (ie the 'best' husband) women have to be ruthlessly policed, especially young women. Therefore older women have to dominate and control potentially competitive younger women.

They have to be on 'high alert' all the time to any possible competition.

Ok that's the right wing women, what about the other option. Raymond based it on her experience as a nun, therefore it should be no surprise that is what she advocates:

physical separation from society, chastity from PiV sex, an internal matriarchy (means older women bossing younger ones). Such women must not show any signs of 'femininity' or sexuality (nun stuff again).

Raymond then melded the 2 options together, and overall this is the position taken by many, whether they are right wing women or self ID'd 'radical feminists': anti sex, anti contraception/abortion/IVF/etc.

So where does trans women (and that's only who she cared about) fit into this?

Raymond saw them, alongside the new reproductive technology coming out back then, as an existential threat to women. That reproductive tech would reduce (even replace) women's monopoly over birth,

and trans women would reduce (even replace) women's monopoly over sex for men. In the long run cis women would be totally replaced, as by losing their monopolies they would lose their worth to men, who would then get rid of them.

Thus women had to both (a) maintain and support the patriarchy, getting the best deal they can and (b) manipulate it to eliminate any competition to their monopolies (which was their only worth). .

Bleak eh?

What about those who choose option (2), separatism. Well pretty bleak as well, sexless, elimination of any 'femininity' in a appearance (a modern nun's uniform in essence). While affection between women was fine no sex was allowed.

That seems contentious, however:

they defined sex only as PiV activity. If a woman got a bit of a thrill having a little kiss and cuddle with another woman, that was not sex and was ok. But anything even remotely similar to PiV sex, was sex and that was bad.

Ask any lesbian of that era what the 'rad fems' and 'political lesbians' were like to other ones, driving many away. Butch/femme ones were hated in the extreme. As were sex positive, kinksters, etc.

Anything that even slightly resembled PiV sex was 'verbotten'

And as a result you got this coalition of right wing women and these so called 'rad fems' working together to protect the patriarchy and women's role within it. Anti sex, anti porn, anti sex workers, anti IVF, anti RU-486, etc, etc and, united on this, anti the HPV vaccination.

And nothing has really changed. They are just 2 sides to the same coin.

Odd things about them. The option (2) ones took on the appearance of butch lesbians...while endlessly attacking actual butch lesbians.

Which seems odd, unless you view it as their version of the nun's habits. Sexless, genderless (they see masculinity as the 'natural' state and femininity as artificial), with a dash of the cargo cult mentality.

Their attacks on being androgynous (now NB) stems from that.

Because 'femininity' is unnatural but 'masculinity' is natural, then a blending of the 2 is just as bad as straight 'femininity'. Plus it might lead to the 'great existential threat' ..trans women.

Because they truly with all their hearts believe in the innate and total superiority of men they simply cannot conceive of trans women choosing to give that up to become inferior women, except as it being a nefarious plot against them, taking away their precious monopolies.

Or those tiny 'separatist' nunneries. Back in the 70s/80s the thing they were terrified about was trans women with their 'male energy' dominating cis women. Their innate 'superiority' would crush women every where they met.

In one form or another the same concept continues.

Trans men get condescension, because they are 'trying' to be men, which to them they can never be, being 'inferior' women. 'Stop deluding yourself and come back and join us in our endless oppression' they cry.

So being basically the same of course right wing women and these so called 'rad fems' (claimed lesbian or not) find it easy to work with each other ...and work with those patriarchal men.

Note another continuing theme by them as well.

Left wing, feminist supporting men are suspicious and not to be trusted. Right wing patriarchal men can be trusted.
Left wing ones are, like trans women, being deceptive. Right wing ones are truthful, happy to maintain women's monopolies and tolerate the 'nunneries'.

Because to them no man wants to eliminate the patriarchy, then any who appear to do so must be deceptive and have another agenda. So their support for contraception/abortion/etc is just so they can have more sex and reduce women's societal bargaining power.

They support women rights, they are really trying to take away women's fragile power based on those sex/birth monopolies.

They support equality, they are really trying to erase women.

Therefore the only true male allies are right wing, patriarchal men. Only they can be trusted.

Twisted eh? But in one form or another, they all believe this.

And the better the deal they get out of the 'patriarchal bargain', the more they agree. Hence why they are dominated by white, middle (and higher) class, middle aged and older, heterosexual women.

Here's Joni Welsh channeling her inner Phyllis Schlafly (ho used near identical claims in her fight against the US ERA).

It's why the modern day 'gender crits' are against the proposed US Equality act, and the VAWA.