I think the confusion (I’m going to call it that) about MRAs “derailing” Feminist discussions largely stems from a few main points.
1. Feminists insist they care about issues affecting men and are in fact working to relieve these issues. -This often gives the idea that Feminists care about how these issues affect men.
2. Feminists rarely, if ever, consider men as being negatively affected in any meaningful capacity by issues or solutions, even though men are often directly negatively affected by both. People see this exclusion and correct it by including consideration for men in these conversations.
It seems to me that the double-speak of “stop bringing attention to your issues because we are working on them” and “stop asking us to consider your issues because we are working on women’s issues” is really at the center of the confusion.
There certainly are people who pointedly derail discussions, but I don’t think this is always the case here:
-Pointing out that a discussion regarding equality is missing input or even consideration for half of those affected is not derailing. That’s contributing to the conversation.
-Pointing out that a solution has a flaw of actually harming or otherwise negatively affecting the wellbeing of half of those concerned is not derailing. Again, valuable contribution.
If Feminists don’t want to include consideration for men, then they might try not insisting that they do. This would make far more sense than continuing to painstakingly dodge the expectation that men and their outcomes will be considered in Feminist discussions and solutions.