mi·sog·y·ny
məˈsäjənē/
noun
noun: misogyny
dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women.
"she felt she was struggling against thinly disguised misogyny"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
mis·an·dry
miˈsandrē/
noun
noun: misandry
dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against men (i.e., the male sex).
"her brand of feminism is just poorly disguised misandry"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No matter how it came about or how you personally use it, both words mean exactly the same thing toward their respective sex.
And forgive me, but I'm a little baffled on how you had no say in becoming a trans woman, and if I ask that you elaborate a bit more on that. Because unless you were held down on a table and forcefully operated on, then regardless of how badly you were "coercively assigned" it's still a path that you completely chose. Because in the end, you could have also chosen to remain a male, be it you'd most likely be severely unhappy as a male given your feelings towards them, but you could have still been one.
But instead you took the path that would make you feel more like yourself in the long run, and again that's fantastic, but the point remains the same. Yes, I imagine being a trans-woman in a hyper-hetero-male world is a complete pain at every turn. Hell, being gay can be an outright annoyance at many turns with all of the narrow minded straight guys out there, and I can only imagine that being trans around those same narrow minded guys can only be a downright nightmare (considering even drag culture can bring out the scary ones). It's hard enough asking hetero guys to accept the fact that some guys want to just love other guys. But it's like climbing Mt. Rushmore asking them to also accept that some males feel most comfortable actually being females, and vice versa.
And again, you're blaming one side. Men can be inherently oppressive, sure. But so can women. Saying "All men are oppressive pigs" or "All white people are oppressive racists" is blaming one side because of your own experiences. Women can be just as oppressive as men if given the right tools, and white people definitely aren't the only ones guilty of oppression...they're just the most notoriously known in history. But that doesn't mean other races haven't been guilty of oppression in the slightest. Hell, look at some of the Middle Eastern countries out there. If you're trans, sure can get the operation... but still have the exact same reactions in those countries that you would here. But god forbid you come out as homosexual if you're a male, because in most of those countries it's punishable by either imprisonment or death depending on which country you were unlucky enough to go into. Whereas at least in the US, it's more just ridicule and fighting for the right to get married (and only worse if you come across the wrong person).
To be fair, when your own title calls you a "fabulous misandrist" of course everything you say even in its tame form is going to be considered as such. Does it make it actually true? No. But, well, when you go in guns blazing, your opinions are going to be treated a little more hotly. There's nothing wrong with going in that way, but you just have to accept that your opinions are going to be treated a bit more fiercely than they were possibly intended.
Personally, I don't see women-only events as much as "misandrist" as I do just unnecessary for the most part. When it comes to certain events such as women's health or even survivor support groups...I support women's only events just as I support the flip-side. And sure, occasional events for gaming, and the like that hold specific groups is also fine since it allows bonding for people that identify in that specific group. But even with that latter piece, I don't see it as much as a necessity since people shouldn't have to group together to bond together...people should be able to bond with everyone just for liking the same thing together. And likewise even with the support groups, I only support them because we live in a time that they're an unfortunate necessity that has to exist.
At the same time though, the women-only event in question that even sparked this whole topic was an actual employment opportunity. It wasn't just a fun little event for a specific type of person, and it wasn't something that was done multiple times for different groups. It was a singular event that allowed people to actually apply for a job at that company, and it was closed off to all but two types of people: those who identified as women, and those who identified as non-binary.
Again, multiple occurrence event and/or something less impactful, then sure, make some of them this-group-only since you're having multiple events. But when it's one event, and you're actually denying certain people the right to attend an employment opportunity, it becomes a problem. The reasoning doesn't matter, because as mentioned in suggestion, there were ways to work around it...even so much as just opening it up to everyone and encouraging and advertising to those who you were trying to reach to attend. What matters is that by feeling like they had to right a wrong in how one side is denied the opportunity for employment, they fixed this by denying the other side. Thus just flipping the table around and pissing off what was arguably their more major demographic rather than actually solving the problem effectively.
And not only did they not actually solve the problem effectively, but some even took to social media to actually bash against the people who were speaking against what they did, which ended up getting them fired.
Going back to the posts much earlier on, I don't entirely agree with a company policing a person's opinions and firing them if they don't approve. That being said, I also don't agree with those personal opinions attempting to speak for the company's decision, and getting as vile as some of those opinions were getting while still attempting to speak on behalf of that same company.
In other words, if they weren't trying to speak for the company's decision or did it with much more class, then they would have most likely still had their jobs. But since they chose to actually talk as if officially being the mouthpieces of the company, and did it as negatively towards certain fans as they did, that's the only reason I agree with them getting fired for it. If I was running a company, and one of my employees chose to speak on behalf of the company in such a way, then I would have fired them too. Because once you put on that mouthpiece and act like you speak for the company, then your personal opinion turns into what people feel are the company's opinions. And if those opinions are negative, then you have no right speaking for the company.