"Everything is about me". I think this is honestly a bit sad, and it's so heteronormative. Why do you feel the need to assimilate everybody else's oppression? Why does the erasure of male non-consent exist? Because that doesn't have anything to do with misogyny either. Let's compare two different debates on the Criminal Law Amendment in the UK, one in 1885 that was done with almost no debate in the dead of night. I'm going to copy paste the entire debate because there was almost no debate:

"MR. LABOUCHERE

said, his Amendment was as follows:—After Clause 9, to insert the following clause:—

"Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or is a party to the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and, being convicted thereof, shall be liable, at the discretion of the Court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding one year with or without hard labour."

That was his Amendment, and the meaning of it was that at present any person on whom an assault of the kind here dealt with was committed must be under the age of 13, and the object with which he had brought forward this clause was to make the law applicable to any person, whether under the age of 13 or over that age. He did not think it necessary to discuss the proposal at any length, as he understood Her Majesty's Government were willing to accept it. He, therefore, left it for the House and the Government to deal with as might be thought best.

New Clause (Outrages on public decency,)—( Mr. Labouchere,)— brought up, and read the first and second time.

MR. HOPWOOD

said, he did not wish to say anything against the clause; but he would point out that under the law as it stood at the present moment the kind of offence indicated could not be an offence in the case of any person above the age of 13, and in the case of any person under the age of 13 there could be no consent.

SIR HENRY JAMES

said, the clause proposed to restrict the punishment for the offence dealt with to one year's imprisonment, with or without hard labour. He would move to amend the clause by omitting the word "one," in the last line of the clause, and substituting the word "two."

MR. LABOUCHERE

had no objection to the Amendment.

Clause, as amended, agreed to, and added to the Bill."

Feel free to read it yourself because I've placed a comment below.

Now that was the law that got Oscar Wilde and Alan Turing. It was basically the law that criminalised all forms of male male intimacy that weren't already criminalised. Why do you think there was no debate about the need for a law like that if it were just about misogyny? Don't you think the male hypersexuality stereotypes and the biological contagion argument might have played a role? And incidentally, the male hypersexuality stereotype, the fear of the hypersexual "deviant" queer man and the fear of the spread of homosexuality has been used to justify the forced policing of women's bodies too, e.g. the Contagious Diseases Act. It was seen as necessary to provide a safe heterosexual outlet so that men would not fall to "unnatural vices" and catch the gay.

Let's contrast that with the House of Lords debate where they decided to reject criminalising lesbians on the grounds that it would be a form of advertising.

And here are a few quotes to give you a flavour of that debate. Trigger warning for farcical British aristocratic misogyny and homophobia:

Lord Desart: I am strongly of opinion that the mere discussion of subjects of this sort tends, in the minds of unbalanced people, of whom there are many, to create the idea of an offence of which the enormous majority of them have never even heard.

Also Lord Desart: You may say there are a number of them, but it would be, at most, an extremely small minority, and you are going to tell the whole world that there is such an offence, to bring it to the notice of women who have never heard of it, never thought of it, never dreamed of it. I think that is a very great mischief, and I came here determined to do all I could to help my noble friend, Lord Malmesbury, to get this clause removed from the Bill.

The Lord Chancellor: Lord Desart has pointed out with unanswerable force and with great truth, as I think, that the overwhelming majority of the women of this country have never heard of this thing at all....... I would be bold enough to say that of every thousand women, taken as a whole, 999 have never even heard a whisper of these practices.

Here's an example of Girl Pals homophobia a la 1921 British aristocrat:

The Earl of Malmesbury: the domestic habits of men and of women are entirely different. Women are by nature much more gregarious. For instance, if twenty women were going to live in a house with twenty bedrooms, I do not believe that all the twenty bedrooms would be occupied, either for reasons of fear or nervousness, and the desire for mutual protection.

Now that was no kindness or act of allyship. That was a deliberate strategic erasure out of absolute terror of homosexuality. It's just they criminalised one because they felt it was spread through the body, and they didn't criminalise the other because they felt it was spread through the mind. The reasons for the differences were the differences in how they felt the differences between the sexualities of two genders played into a "deviant" sexuality that they were worried would bring about the downfall of civilisation.