Yeah, i have my problem with these arguments as well. I absolutely agree that all forms of opression based on gender and sexuality tie back to misogyny, and that you cannot adequately explain transmisogyny without patriarchy, and that you cannot effectively fight it without feminism, and that transphobia promotes misogyny against cis women, and that all terfs end up betraying feminism and in the end will, to the last woman, stand with nazis against abortion, but these lines of thinking always rest on the assumption that we can only convince people that transphobia is bad because it can cause spillover effects that hurt cis people.

People argue like that because trans lives are not seen as something that matters. They frame it this way because trans people do not fully exist in their imagination and they reflexively talk over us even when we're in the same room. It is a symptom of our unpersoning.

That does not mean we should not situate the discussion of trans genocide in its wider context. But it does mean that those most affected by it should be centered in its discussion, both when it comes to who is affected and who is part of the conversation. I do not want the chapo boys to talk about this among themselves and go "haha, this is actually really bad for cis women", i want them to have a trans woman on the podcast when they go over it. These conversations should not happen without us leading them. I'm sick and tired of being a political football that gets kicked around by people who understand literally nothing about gender and who stumble over the most basic discoveries and gawk at them as if they've just made a world shattering discovery when it's something absurdly banal like "women are treated as inherently and immutably incompetent in our society".

Bonus points for when the cis people discussing this are exclusively men, oh wait that's the default condition for this shit.