Oh and also
I don't think there's a need to rank one as worse than the other
And then literally one comment later
Of course it makes sense to classify some as worse than others
Goalposts moving more than the ball here. If you can't be fucked to engage with my points honestly, then just say that, instead of this intellectually dishonest goal post moving you keep doing.
But I think in individual cases the "i thought you were gay" can be just as bad, so I do think it's entirely comparable.
Literally. Verbatim. Who do you think you're kidding here dude ?
You literally just argued, verbatim, that because being called gay in isolated cases can be just as bad as a trans person being misgendered, that makes deliberately misgendering and calling someone gay comparable.
That was your verbatim argument. And you've suddenly moved the goal posts to "of course it makes sense to classify some as worse than others"
So of according to you, if there is a single guy on earth who gets just as upset from being called "doofus" as a black person from being called the N-Word, that in your mind makes calling someone a doofus and calling a black person the N-Word comparable ?
I'm not really counting the first two, as they were more temporary wooden bridges. The 1209 London Bridge was the first, proper, permanent bridge across the Thames.
In general it can be said that poor people do not have the capital to make upfront investments which become profitable over time. Not even just literal investing, but investing in things like a more fuel efficient car, upgrading the insulation in your house/apartment to save on heating, buying non-perishables in bulk when there's a good deal, buying a dish washer instead of hand washing...
So many things that let you save tons of money in the long run, require relatively large upfront investments, that poor people can't afford. That's a big reason why poverty can be such an insidious vicious loop, that can be extremely hard to escape from.
Two identical households, with identical income could have vastly different financial situations, just based on if their income was previously low, and they weren't able to afford any of these investments, vs. If their income was previously high, having allowed them to previously make these large investments to reduce their long term monthly costs, and secure enough liquidity to be able to continue occasionally making these investments.
I mean it was the first ever permanent bridge crossing the Thames in London, and for a long time it was the only bridge in the entirety of east London (despite barely being east of the east-west midpoint of London). London bridge has a lot of interesting history, even if the current one is visually boring.
Jay Foreman has a fun video on the history of London Bridge (https://youtu.be/u5CguqywlBk)
There's a fun video on the history of old/medium/new London bridge in Jay Foreman's Unfinished London series:
It's not "oppression Olympics" to point out that it's insulting to equate a minor dick move towards straight people with the ongoing systemic persecution of trans people.
Most notably and importantly because straight people AREN'T oppressed. There is no large scale legal systemic discrimination or oppression of straight people, anywhere on earth. Individual dick heads being asses is not the same as large scale, systemic and legal persecution.
Here's a question for you: Rape "jokes" are never acceptable. But, would you consider making rape "jokes" towards a woman who was never victimised the same level of shitty behaviour as making a rape "joke" towards a woman who you know is a rape survivor. And how would you react if someone was arguing that those two situations are totally comparable and equally bad.
If your answers to those questions are "of course not" and "outraged", congratulations, you agree with my point.
It's not infighting or scorekeeping to point out that by and large trans people in western countries, at the moment, face far more identity based hate, discrimination and persecution than straight people do.
It's also not infighting to point out the hypocrisy in people on the internet and broader society, outside of explicitly curated trans friendly spaces, regularly getting far more outraged at cis het people receiving hate or discrimination or shitty behaviour for their identity, than they do for the ongoing legal and social persecution of trans people.
Pointing that out is also isn't defending shitty behaviour towards straight people. Poking at the insecurities of anyone is unacceptable. But in my opinion, equating the two as similarly bad, is demeaning, insulting and belittling towards the massive struggles trans people face.
Also, even if you do decide to try it with a partner who wants to try your scheduled sex idea, I would definitely not start with sex.
Start slowly, by for example offering to jerk him off, or allowing him to masturbate to your naked body. Try it out slowly, and then see if you're both comfortable with, and (at least he is) actually enjoying this type and level of intimacy, before jumping straight to penetrative sex.
It's a very delicate affair, not just for you, but for the man as well. Having sex with a woman who is unresponsive, and just passively accepting, has a potential to make your partner subconsciously feel like they're abusing, or even raping, you (even if you explicitly give consent, the subconscious is rarely swayed by rational arguments), which has the potential to lead to serious sexual trauma.
Fun fact, Spam, as in spiced ham, is actually the origin of the name email spam. There's a monty python sketch where the name Spam keeps getting incessantly repeated, and based on that sketch the term spam for unsolicited digital messages was coined.