Please clarify. If this part my post was offensive or clueless in some way it was purely unintentional and I would like to know what I did wrong so as to not make that mistake in the future. (no snark or sealioning here I’m genuinely wanting to understand).
I think the “dude” response was in reference to your use of feminine pronouns to refer to the transman. You should say “he” was surprised by the difference “he” perceived as a man vs as a woman, etc.
And I didn’t think you were advocating that women bear the burden; I was more…nudging you to go further with your criticism. It’s like if the boss told me to make coffee for all 30 of the attorneys at the weekly meeting (giving me the job because I’m the only woman on the team), and you stood up for me by pointing out that we only have a 4-cup coffee maker so that’s kind of an unrealistic assignment. Like, I appreciate the support and you’re absolutely right, but could we go one step further and discuss how this shouldn’t even be my job in the first place? That’s all. 
I don’t understand how this different from when you first met the women who are your friends? I don’t see how being introduced as a friend of a friend vs just being introduced/introducing yourself makes a difference, myself.
Most trans men use “he/him”. And it’s inappropriate to refer to a trans man as a “woman” even if you’re talking about them prior to their transition. Rather, if you want to make a comparison, say something like “as compared to before he transitioned”.
EDIT: So your post could have said “In the original post a trans man was surprised by the difference in emotional support he received before vice after his transition”.
The pronouns, man. You referred to the guy as “she” like ten times in that post.
Also, “trans man” is two words. It’s an adjective+noun phrase, like “Black man” or “Jewish man,” not a separate noun.
Like @mijin, I’m very sorry you have suffered problems and almost-attacks from aggressive men. There is a lot of fucked-uppedness in our society and in our people. Would that that were not so.
But I invite you to read this and see how it sounds to you:
Fuck, sorry. Still need to work on my implicit pronoun reflexes. I thought I was better at this. Damn it!. 
Honestly, in the same context, that sounds absolutely fine to me. If white people are lonely because we don’t have the same sense of brotherhood/sisterhood that black people have with one another, then that’s a problem for white people to address. It does not confer on black people an obligation to welcome us into their safe spaces and make themselves vulnerable to us. The fact that, if they did make themselves vulnerable, some of us would not prove worthy of that trust, is an additional reason for them to remain guarded. It doesn’t require that all of us be unworthy to be justified. But they don’t even need that reason, because making us feel a sense of community is not their responsibility. This isn’t a both-sides thing where the oppressed person owes the same duty of inclusivity to the oppressor. We do not get to shut them out of mainstream spaces without being bigots. They do get to have their own little circles of comfort without being bigots.
I’m not sure I’m following you, and there has been a lot of misunderstanding in this thread, so let me clarify the question:
Are you asking me how I initiate friendships with women, when I interpret signs of friendship as attraction?
Too late to edit:
I see that I misread your hypo; I had the races switched in my head. My point stands. This isn’t about race or gender per se; it’s about power. The group in power owes a greater duty to the group not in power. The vulnerable group has the right to protect itself. The group in power does not have the right to shut out the group not in power from having a seat at the table. But the vulnerable group does not have an obligation to make themselves more vulnerable, or to take care of the powerful group emotionally. So while you can change one vulnerable group to another (women to black people,) you can’t change the vulnerable group to the group in power (women to white people.)
I totally concede the point you make just above about the power group vs the non-power group. That was an unfortunate & unintended side effect of the point I was trying to make which was put maybe a bit too delicately. Which delicacy I’ll remedy a couple paragraphs from now. It’s also beside the point that I was trying to make.
I also fully agree with your overarching point made in many posts that it is not women’s job (individually or collectively) to make up for the fact Western male socialization leaves men lacking in the camaraderie women take mostly for granted amongst themselves. As pointed out by that transman’s revelatory blog post we’ve been discussing.
[Remaining 5 carefully written paragraphs of post deleted before posting.] I’m not confident enough I can express my thoughts in a way that can be helpful rather than viewed as gratuitously inflammatory. I’m dropping the topic right here.
Yes. That’s close enough.
I suspect many men who have problems with dating consider themselves not to be part of a power group. If so, I call BS. There may have been multiple factors that contributed to me not dating for years at a time, but being male was never one of them. I’m a white, male, Xian, hetero. Hard to get more priveleged than that.
Ok then.
As I said, repeatedly, the observation was specifically about “cold” situations where I am talking to someone who is essentially a stranger. Not situations like a friend’s barbecue say, where I am meeting someone as a friend of a friend.
In the latter case, I wouldn’t infer anything from someone taking an interest in me. I mean, it’s positive obviously, but I wouldn’t take it as any kind of hint of physical attraction.
And it is situations like this where I make most of my friends. Some linked social circle.
How might I make friends with a woman in a “cold” situation? The answer is slowly.
It’s difficult, and it would normally take seeing a woman a few times, and just exchanging smalltalk, such that she is comfortable that I am not going to hit on her.
That also reminds me that the only woman I noticed coming on to me since I’ve been married was a prostitute in East New York, Brooklyn. Naive person that I was, I pointed to my ring and said I was married. She said that most of the men she “went out with” were married. I refrained from saying that my wife was far more attractive, and kept me plenty busy.
I still don’t understand the difference, there. If someone expresses the exact same level of interest in you, what does it matter if they are a friend’s friend at a barbeque, or a stranger at a non-hook-up event … like, I don’t know, a model engineer’s meetup, or whatever floats your hobby boat?
I guess what I’m asking is - are you going through life as if every non-FOAF meeting with your preferred gender is a potentially sexual interaction?
Aah. That’s one big difference, then. I make my friends quickly, either gender. Maybe I put out stronger “not going to hit on you” vibes, and so don’t have to do the extra work with women? I do know it’s not just me, I have several friends who are the same. Not all of us married or in LTRs, either.
Yes, the situation in which you’re meeting someone matters.
The expected level of interaction, and perceived safety, is different being introduced to a woman at a dinner party, versus engaging in smalltalk with a woman at a bus stop. (to take it to two extremes, but there is a whole gradient between these two situations).
I didn’t use the word “sexual”. But yes, I am aware that when interacting with either gender, there is a non-zero chance that they might be attracted to me.
The situations I’m thinking of are more like the former than the latter, even though the person is not a FOAF.
But you did use the words ‘physical attraction’, same thing
That doesn’t enter my mind in most if my interactions with anyone.
But this interaction is supposed to be you trying to understand the point that I made. If you wish to make your own, new, point about first encounters, go for it.
No. Physical attraction can mean liking someone’s smile, or eyes, or even their laugh, etc, none of which is necessarily sexual. “Sexual” is a loaded term here that you’re using to poison the well. I have not said anything whatsoever about sex.
Aah, it’s to be disingenuity like ‘when I said physical attraction I didn’t mean sexual … in a discussion about incels’. OK, I’m out.