sometimes i doubt internally if my posting abt transandrophobia/transmisandry as a theoretical construct being an incoherent mess almost always purely meant to undermine transmisogyny is actually doing harm. maybe there is something there i'm missing, i worry i might actually be hurting someone even though i very clearly understand the theory i'm writing and why it applies.
but then run into what actual people say "real transandrophobia" is in the wild and i am immediately reassured that i am in the right
both of these were the respective first posts of their screeds, logically where you'd put your rhetorically strongest foot forwards. when you're trying to make people agree, you'd want a clear example of you being right first to demonstrate it, you'd generally put the shakier stuff in the middle so it's less remembered.
and you're telling me the best rhetorical argument you can put forwards, the first point you want me to see, are respectively "fuckboy is a horrible anti-transmasculine slur :(" and "a trans woman making a joke about 3-in-1 shampoo is oppressing me"????
note how also both of these arguments in the wild are complaining about transfems. when you actually press a transandrophobia truther on what their underlying theory is they'll retreat to the motte argument of "well terfs want to oppress us and in various ways including conversion therapy they will treat our masculinity as something to be eliminated"1, but whenever you actually see the rhetoric of transandrophobia/transmisandry in the wild, it is always being deployed to say "these feminazis baeddels are oppressing me for being a man :("