Alright, I'll do it. There's multiple layers to this.
Something about the tranch just brings out my autism, so sorry.
I do want to clarify that none of this is my own point of view, I am simply working off the basic "feminist" assumptions that SJW/TRA circles seem try (and fail) to build upon. I don't have a dog in this fight, I just want to point and laugh at the idiots.
First the straight meaning of each tweet:
- "Black ftms are not the patriarchy/oppressors, if you think that youre racist. "
- "If you think saying ftms are not the patriarchy means I don't see ftms as men, you are a misandrist and victimizing yourself"
- "Why is this only getting attention now that I, a White, am saying it?"
Point 1 is in reference to a common point of troon ideology where men are oppressors of women, and ftms are men, therefore, ftms are oppressors of women. This is, I guess, sound within their own logic, but incredibly stupid for anyone with two brain cells who realizes that women pretending to be men do not get the societal benefits men (arguably) get. When was the last time you saw an ftm CEO? A ftm accused of rape being let slide because "boys will be boys"? An ftm denying an mtf an abortion? Whether you agree with the idea that "men are privileged under patriarchy" or not, I think everyone can agree that you cannot both claim men are privileged under patriarchy AND that women pretending to be men are equally privileged under patriarchy.
Then point 2 is covering his ass: He has identified that ftms do not reap the social benefits of being male, because they aren't, but also doesn't want to dig deeper into
why (because they're female), so he just avoids going into it altogether by saying "but this totally doesn't mean they're not dudes!!!". This is because it would mean admitting he is a privileged male himself. To avoid admitting such a thing, he takes an MRA talking point that "not all men are oppressors" and "you just like victimizing yourself!". This is in direct contradiction with point 1 where he attempts to establish that ftms are not the patriarchy and therefore not oppressors. If men are not oppressors, why do you need to specify that ftms are not oppressors?
Point 3 is pure virtue signaling and riding on the serotonin he gets from those meager 5 likes. It's not enough that he's getting attention for it, he has to make everyone feel guilty for not giving the attention to someone else before him. This is superficial, of course, as he actually loves that he's the center of attention even in this conversation about black female-to-male transsexuals, of which he is the opposite.
tl;dr:
"Men are patriarchy! Patriarchy oppresses! But ftms are not oppressors! But they're still men, because not all men are oppressors! Stop victimizing yourself!!"
In other words, he's making a point that terfs make (ftms are not male oppressors of women, because they are female) then covering his ass with an MRA argument (not all men are violent and if you think so you're victimizing yourself). I would call him slimy or two faced, but the truth is he's just a retard and probably doesn't even realize how his two points entirely contradict each other.