I guess I believe that for irrational aversion to be properly characterized as bigotry, it requires at least some social context. My irrational aversion has to be in part a social construct that is shared by some fraction of the community in order for it to be considered bigotry.
I can see your point here, so let's provide some social context to constructing naked effigies of a man designed to ridicule him. It is surely widely known that it's been common practice historically to go after a man by going after his image
as a man. In some ways this is parallel with sexist terms used to denigrate women, since especially in the case of men so mocked there is always the sense that they are being cast as inferiors due to their weak nature (as women were). This kind of mockery includes sexual ridicule about orientation, such as calling him a homosexual. It includes potency ridicule, regarding virility, sexual ability/capability, and so forth. It includes the good old penis-size ridicule. And it includes the general insinuation that women would never want such a person. And the list goes on. It bears mentioning that although 'man culture' has tended to mean such ridicule comes from other men, it is by no means limited to men, as even in our day and age I've heard women levying such epithets against men who've earned their ire for one reason or another.
There is a long, rich history of going after a man's manliness to unman him. To be honest I haven't seen the Trump statues in great detail but...come on, they're probably not very
generous to him, are they? It's almost preposterous to suggest that these statues are meant to make fun of his age or the mere fact that he's overweight. Maybe the weight part is sort of in the mix, but it strikes me as not the real point. It's a sexual attack, plain and simple.
So there's your social context. The main difference I see between this and between the kinds of rhetoric that has been levied against women historically (slut shaming, body-image shaming, etc) is the relative power between the sexes in society. But I'm not even sure I'd be confident in the premise that there has been
more anti-woman rhetoric in culture historically than anti-man. The actual conditions for women were, in a sense, punishment enough for them, but in terms of which sex has endured more plain-old ridicule? I'd say it's a tough call at the very least, especially if you think about frat culture, public school culture in places like England (both of which are notorious for intense hazing and shaming), or even theocratic cultures, I feel like the systemic mockery of certain men (not the popular/powerful ones, of course) has almost been an historical institution. So this is why I asked you whether the real issue was punching up/down, because aside from that I can't see how shaming a man's manliness is anything other than a throwback to this very well-known procedure.