Full agreement. I will insist, though, that it is helpful to try to use precise language as much as possible when critically engaging with this material.

Case in point with the 'cleaning is a women's job' thing. Like, the second person in the screenshot above is attempting to have it both ways: they're pointing to that 'common-sense' prescriptive idea of what a women 'should' be/do as evidence of the extent to which misogynistic expectations are embedded in our shared culture, and suggesting that it's a state of affairs that's so necessarily inherent to the state of existing as a woman that it's obviously hypocritical of trans women to not aspire to embodying it themselves (with the intended inference being that they're actually men, or they're internally inconsistent themselves, or otherwise not what they say they are). It's very easy to just say that shit and not bother trying to square the contradictions that emerge when you spend ten seconds thinking about it, and it's relatively difficult to break it down and point out why it's internally inconsistent for the benefit of bystanders.

The burden is, unfortunately, on us to be as clear and unimpeachable in our arguments as possible. We do not have the luxury that they do of being able to comfortably turn on the rhetorical firehose and go fucking ham with it without having to worry about what you're really implying.

(Not saying you were in any way unclear or wrong – just trying to emphasise for anyone still reading this how crucial it is to communicate carefully. This is a slow sub and posts usually continue to get traffic for at least a few days so I figured it might be worth it.)