The "radical" in "radical feminism" means "of the root."
Women are oppressed because of their reproductive capacity. Furthermore, we live in a society that privileges men and stereotypical male behavior, roles, and activities over women and stereotypical female behavior, roles, and activities.
As an example of this latter, cooking is seen as predominantly a woman's responsibility, but when a man does it, he's a chef, and automatically better and more gifted than a woman doing what women have done invisibly for thousands of years. Or as another example, when a woman takes care of her employer's clothes, she's a seamstress or laundress, but when a man does it, he's a valet and his employer's trusted body man. Any man doing "woman's work" brings a level of skill, professionalism, and artistry to the task that women get no credit for.
And if you don't agree with the above paragraph, or you think that I am overstating it, why is sissification/bimbofication seen as being weak? The fetish itself is a loss of status. "Acting like a woman" is humiliating for them, and they get off on it, and "acting like a woman" has a very specific connotation. They don't enjoy fiber arts or decorating the house or plating a good meal or any of the more "feminine" things the women I know enjoy, they just think that looking like a streetwalker marks them as a lesser human.
And as far as reproductive status goes, look at what Kevin Fucking Gibes thinks a woman is: AMHOLE.
A woman is nothing more than a receptacle for a penis. A hole to be filled. Maybe bred, maybe not, but any resulting pregnancy is all for the glory of the man doing the impregnating.
"Oh, you have a cunt now that a penis can fill! You are a true and honest woman!"
Never mind that the thing looks like a war crime. This man is theoretically available to get fucked, and that's what women are for, so he is a woman now.
The troons themselves make radical feminism a crucial lens for looking at [current year].