Anti-homeless architecture makes cities hostile to everyone, but we understand that the driving force behind this phenomenon is specifically anti-homelessness.
The curb-cut effect makes streets better and more accessible for everyone, but this is still the result of combating a specific type of ableism in city planning.
This is easily understood by many, that even though a social force may affect many people broadly, it does have a specific target.
So why does this become so difficult to understand when we're talking about transmisogyny?
Transmisogyny can be weaponized against anyone, but as a social force it specifically targets transfeminine people, and thus non-transfems can leverage their position to mitigate the effects of transmisogyny, or indeed, exempt themselves from it.
This is why we have the terms TMA and TME, so that we're able to discuss this phenomenon.
If there's one salient criticism against this terminology, it's that the specific words used can trip up people unfamiliar with the terms; "affected" is pretty broad, and "exempt" is rather particular. This can be remedied by simply providing the definitions for the terms, however.
Maybe terms like "transmisogyny targeted" and "transmisogyny exemptable" would communicate the terms' meanings more immediately, but this would amount to little more than language policing that detracts from the actual discussion of transmisogyny and how it functions in society.