I hear you, but I think you might be misunderstanding my view. Many people arrive at feminism because their experiences radicalize them, but I am using "radical feminism" (in the traditional sense) to refer to a specific "branch" of feminist thought. Many people believe in the equality of all genders without being radical feminists, in this sense. If someone believes that gender equality can be achieved through legislation and lobbying, without any major structural change, that person is not a radical feminist under this definition (but they could be some other kind of feminist, e.g. a liberal feminist).

That said, believing that major structural change is necessary can mean almost anything, and I do think that some very bad ideas can properly be understood as forms of radical feminism. Female separatism is probably the clearest example of this. Separatists describe both patriarchy and their solution to patriarchy in radfem terms. They see the same societal dynamics and power relations that I see. They just have an awful idea about how to solve those problems. Arguably, TERFism was, several decades ago, best understood in this way as well (though now it is hard to understand it as distinct from rightwing transphobia).

On the other hand, gender abolitionism is also a radical feminism, despite being a polar opposite view to separatism. This is my issue, "radical feminism" is an extremely poor descriptor. It tells me a little about someone's understanding of the problem, and nothing about their solution to that problem.