Giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're trying to understand, I'll restate the logical fallacy a bit more formally:

    Person A believes thing 1.
    Person A believes thing 2.
    Therefore people who believe 1 also believe 2.

This line of reasoning can be rhetorically powerful but it's flawed and, IMO, toxic to the discussion.

> the far-right (and to some extent the MRA movement since there's a strong overlap

What I actually said was:

    People in set A believe thing 1.
    People in set B believe thing 2.
    There is a strong overlap between set A and set B.

You'll note there's nothing about a causal connection, only a correlation.

[edit for formatting]