Calling someone a hypocrite using different facts

Person x, a male in a position of power, makes a disparaging remark about women and about how he would perform the act described. Person y, a female, is offended. Person k (any gender) calls person y a hypocrite as she has been photographed performing the act on herself.

I asserted that the argument is invalid because 1. person x is held to a higher standard, 2. person y is a member of the aggrieved sex and 3. person x performing the act is legally assault and battery, whereas if person y does this act to herself it is consensual.

This isn't hypocrisy it is a personal choice. Besides, the way you present it, person x isn't being chastised by referring to the act, they are being chastised by how they are describing what context the act would be done by them to another person. At least that's how I read it.
Example, If a person or people pin me down and shave my head against my wishes they commit assault. Just because I have shaved my head before doesn't make me a hypocrite. It's not the act that is in question, it's the fact that another person is describing how they would do the act that's offensive, imo.

This is not an argument. It would be more accurately described as an opinion being stated or claim being made. This is important just to the extent that we can't say it is valid/invalid. We can, however, say that the claim that person Y is a hypocrite is simply misusing/misunderstanding the term. As you point out, who commits the act is the important part here, not the act itself. Situations matter.

My view: in addition to not providing a rational argument, the OP has muddied the waters with a string of non sequiturs:

1.“Person X is held to a higher standard.” How/why? While mentioning “person X… a male in a position of power” no context is provided for this. Is person X e.g., a head of state, a wealthy CEO, or does he have some kind of undefined direct influence over person Y(a female)? There is no rationale presented that he should be “held to a higher standard.”
2.“Person Y is a member of the aggrieved sex.” Really? Again, no context is provided for this one-sided assertion. Does the OP PRESUME that all Females are Aggrieved, and if so, what are specific repercussions to Person Y (e.g., that given her ‘aggrieved’ status, she should be treated deferentially? Limits?)
3.“Person X performing the act is legally assault and battery, whereas if person Y does this act to herself it is consensual.” - [Remember, this is the purported Argument and not a Premise.] Why couldn’t Person X also perform the ‘Act’ either on Person Y or someone else, CONSENTUALLY?

Perhaps with additional information greater clarity might be brought to the above. As it stands, the OP’s “Argument” is bereft of any meaningful rationale.