You didn't say that. There is a difference between assuming someone is a bad person and making exceptions if they prove you wrong, vs noting who is a bad person and treating them accordingly. This difference in default assumptions is the basis of prejudice.

I would never defend an awful man. I agree that if someone is not treating a woman properly, they should face consequences.

Decency and respect are the bare minimum that anyone should expect. What I was trying to articulate, perhaps poorly, is that I'm okay with holding people accountable as long as they are the ones perpetrating the actions. I misinterpreted your previous statement as being about holding people accountable for actions not of their own making.

I need to apologise. I had to think about it, and I also think I misspoke. I don't think it would be classified as internalised misogyny, and it was harmful to paint it as such.

What I meant to say is that a blanket statement like 'all men are evil' unintentionally props up structures that normalise misogyny.

However, I should note that I understand that this was not your intention, and that the statement is more a reflection on the treatment of trans people, and the line of thinking applied to them.

If you think that being a decent person towards other humans is "proving yourself"

You're the one who said men have to prove themselves to be decent human beings in order to deserve not to be hated, so don't turn around and put your words in someone else's mouth for refuting your point.

"Decent human beings" don't walk around with a neon sign that says "I'm a decent human being." So how do you expect them to prove that? Going out of their way to do performative actions for literally every stranger they encounter, because otherwise the default is for those strangers to assume they're a terrible person? That makes no sense.

The whole point of the "all men are potentially dangerous" argument is that you can't tell at a glance who's safe and who isn't. You're conveniently ignoring that point in all these mental contortions you're going through to justify your hatred.

because I dared to say that if a man is a POS towards women, he's going to be hated.

That's not what you said. You said all men are going to be hated and that that's fine, and that if they want to not be hated then they have to somehow prove that they aren't a piece of shit. That's completely different from saying men shouldn't be hated by default, but if they're a piece of shit then it's okay to hate them.

And you never addressed how you expect men to prove they're not a piece of shit. Carry around a card that says "Certified NAH by women!"? Wear an official armband that says "Not an Asshole"?

Do they have to prove it to everyone they meet individually, for the rest of their lives? Or can they prove it just once and for all and be done with it? Do they have to recertify every few years or so?

Face it, you're being a bigot. And now matter how much you try to oversimplify the issue by saying "just do this and you'll be fine," you're no different from a racist who tells brown people "just prove that you're one of the good ones and then I won't hate you."