Whenever I see jokes or meta-ironic statements made about how men are all evil, or inferior, or should be castrated, or killed, or how they're all dangerous, or predators, or abusers, or disposable; or even if I see more subtle or toned-down versions of the same mentality, I react very negatively. You might ask why – after all, I'm a trans woman. Those thoughts aren't directed at me!
First, the fact that something isn't directed at me shouldn't mean I can't speak up against something I think is wrong. And that kind of bigotry or prejudice is wrong even if it is directed at a dominant group in society, because that prejudice can still deeply hurt individual members of that dominant group who may not get all the benefits of their social group's dominance for various reasons. The patriarchy might be so far out of your reach that no joke can hurt it, but the shy, deeply insecure man who was probably abused during childhood like we all were, who is isolated from and an outcast from patriarchy in every way, who is maybe poor, or black? He'll feel it. So will the trans man next to him.
This is why the logic that "misandry can't be real, because it isn't systemic" is wrong. Prejudice is always wrong, because it can always still cause harm to individuals it is directed at, even if the vague abstract "group" you think those individuals are a part of, and many other members in that group, may not be harmed by it.
Second, I was a boy once. I identified as one. I acted and lived as one. I had some inkling something was wrong – some sense of longing, but it had not taken solid form yet, so I really was a boy. Don't try to tell me otherwise. And the women who make these jokes, if they had met my boy self, would have made these jokes in front of him too, included him in that group of "men" and thought about him the same way. And they may argue that these jokes and thoughts don't apply to me now, but I have not changed in personality or moral qualities since the boy I was, which means that I don't see why they don't. If they would have made those jokes and thought those thoughts then, then they apply to me now, even if they would deny it based on post hoc logic.
Moreover, thirdly, as a trans woman – a butch one at that – my perceived womanhood, my perceived femininity is constantly percarious, and whenever it falters, whenever I am perceived as a man (as I inevitably will be, even in queer spaces), the attitudes toward men that these spaces have will inevitably be applied to me, so I have a vested interest in ensuring that that doesn't lead to pervasive transmisogyny directed at me for being too masculine (I highly recommend reading that link in full).
Finally, the fact that these jokes and thoughts are born as a reaction to how the patriarchy traumatizes and systemically oppresses women is no justification at all. Trauma is not a fucking excuse for prejudice, all of you should know that by now from listening to TERFs talk about trans women, or Karens talk about Black men.
See also, this series of essays, which you really must read to fully understand the gravity of what I'm saying.
ADDENDUM: The transmisogyny vignettes got reposted to r/CuratedTumblr again. So as usual, we get a bunch of people pointing out, correctly in my opinion, that the reason the original writer is facing what she is, is fact that AMAB people are viewed as inherently violent and sexual sociopaths, combined with the fact that trans women are viewed as only probationarily women and really just as men in disguise, and thus as invaders into women's spaces and wolves in sheep's clothing, even by other queer people, which makes us a much more clear and present threat than just the average man to people who view men that way. The original writer even points that out – that the problem at the root of many of her experiences is that she's only very precariously viewed as a woman, and one wrong move will have her viewed as an outsider, a threat, a man again.
But of course we can't have anyone point this out without the classic dogpile of Tumblr Queers arriving to say that misandry – this prejudiced view of men, and how it hurts people – isn't real, it's really transmisogyny only, and accuse the people with the correct analysis above of saying or thinking that trans women are men when all they are saying is that other people view us that way, and accuse them of redirecting the conversation from trans women to men when the entire point is to point out that trans women are affected by it more severely, and nitpick their language and pronoun use for evidence to dismiss their actual points.
As if analyzing this through the lens of transmisognyny isn't essentially just playing a definition game to redefine the terms so that you can ignore something that's inconvenient for you. Because it's essentially saying that misandry, which is what this clearly is, when it affects trans women, is this very real thing with this special name, but when it affects anyone else, including trans men, it simply doesn't exist. Even though it's clearly the same thing. They'll even say amazing things like, "it's not massandry, it's just gender essentialism That views men as inherently sexually violent, but this isn't actually discrimination or prejudice against men."
Especially ironic considering this treatment — where your gender is permanently on probation, and if you are perceived as in any way masculine, you are treated as a threat — IS NOT IN THE LEAST WHAT TRANSMISOGYNY EVEN MEANS. That word was defined to mean the negative treatment of trans women for our femininity because we are perceived as failed or feminine men. It doesn't even apply in this situation, but people are just using it as a word to mean any kind of discrimination trans women may face in order to Avoid having to face up to the actuality.
It's ironic that the person who wrote the original series of vignettes is actually one of these people. She has a "DNI if you think misandry is real".