I'll try and draw a parallel instead. Would you say you'd be capable of spotting when someone is being abused, even if you yourself have never been abused. Would you say you're capable of identifying when someone is depressed, even if you yourself have never been depressed. How about if someone else is gay, even if you've never been gay yourself. Could you spot when someone else is in love, even before you'd ever fallen in love before. None of these are direct parallels of course, but hopefully they illustrated that actually being subjected to something isn't the only method (or in some cases) the best method of collecting information on a subject. Here's an example of someone who has experience in a subject that *shouldn't* be the only person with a valid opinion. A couple's home is broken into by someone of a different race in a burglary. Now, if the homeowner forms an opinion on that person's race it wouldnt be a valid opinion because A: one action isn't representative of a statistic B: that person opinion is coloured by their emotions. C: they're misplacing their anger on the race rather than the crime. You certainly wouldn't let them tell you that because you've never been burgled by that particular race (or at all) that you have absolutely no input on the subject. To come off of the tangent somewhat. Who is better qualified to identify an attempt at pandering by multimillion dollar company: A: a trans person with no particular background of history in the industry B: a CIS woman with a bachelors in marketing. Certainly the attempt at marketing is *aimed* at the trans person, but they may see the pandering as a genuine because they are finally seeing representation-however unethical the company is being. But the qualified woman understands and can recognise the motivation behind the pandering, and therefore better identify it for what it is- pandering. Again, and I want to be crystal clear. That doesn't invalidate Trans peoples experiences.. It does however mean that you should look to the authorities on a subject, whatever they may look like, rather than the people who only have a subjective opinion on something. In other words, the best sources for information are usually the sources that are objective. It's not always the case, but it's a far safer rule to live by. And PS my examples have drawn a lot of conclusions about yourself, In the attempt to work my argument in a coherent way. If they don't apply directly, I hope you don't take the assumption personally.