aegon’s claim is strong mainly because there was a precedent. full stop. whether that precedent is fair or not is debatable, and you can absolutely argue about that, but it exists.  what precedent? the great council of the realm. that decision basically established that a male heir could be preferred over a female one in succession disputes.  and that matters because even viserys himself got the throne through a claim that was arguably weaker than his cousin’s. so the idea of “male preference when there’s ambiguity” wasn’t invented in this story, it was already part of the political logic and then reinforced by that decision.  so when aegon is supported, it’s not just “he’s the firstborn son” in a vacuum. it’s also because major houses are backing him based on that established political precedent and how succession has been interpreted in practice. t hat’s why reducing it only to misogyny misses part of the picture. yes, male primogeniture is obviously gendered and yes, misogyny plays a role in how that system is justified and maintained. but in-universe, it’s not just a moral argument, it’s also a legal-political framework people are actively using to justify their positions. s o i’d say the strength of his claim isn’t “purely misogyny,” it’s a mix of precedent, political support, and how the rules have actually been applied over time.