a very interesting rethorical trick the transandrophobia crowd likes to pull is to declare all violence done by trans men to trans women anecdotal while using the aesthetics of feminist language to frame the actions of trans women as systematically protected harm.
you can show them a trans man being a transmisogynist, by say beating his trans girlfriend, and they'll agree that his actions are violent but they'll consider this an anecdote. if you then go on to describe how he leveraged transmisogyny so that the girlfriend would be ostracised after responding to his abuse with a breakup, or self defence, they'll likewise dismiss that community as bad. examples are anecdotes and not representative, they'll argue, even if you're using these examples to illustrate a materialistic analysis of transmisogyny. that is, of course, if they believe you in the first place.
on the other hand, when transfeminists start describing the extant transmisogyny of queer spaces, they will frame this as a concerted effort that is part of a broader system that covers for the abuse that trans women commit, chief among them how we purportedly take up all the space in conversations about queerness, and how overrepresented we are in media.
there is a capacity to understand the idea of systemic harm, but a refusal to engage with the reality of it. the method of analysis is dismissed for the aesthetics of political deconstruction, refusing to face the fact that their beliefs are simply those of the transmisogynystic majority.