That wasn't chastising you. I don't know you so there was no way I could have known how long you've been on the internet nor your depth in experience in identity within it. I was attempting to point out some of the bigger factors feeding into your complaint, regarding the potential of people harassing you, with the intent of no more than to bring attention to something you may have overlooked, as humans tend to do sometimes.

You're being combative for no reason so I'll leave it here but, in the future, don't always assume malice.

I see both sides here. On the whole, I think both people are trying to contribute and help in their own ways.

Some more specific comments:

> You're being combative for no reason so I'll leave it here but, in the future, don't always assume malice.

Saying "no reason" doesn't ring true to me. What one person considers to be (valid) reasons is subjective. In my view, 'reasons' includes a person's identity and experiences.

With that in mind, how do you think this alternative message would have been received... ?

"It was not my intention to chastise you. I meant well in offering some ways to reduce the chances that trolls come after you. Please don't assume malice. I'm happy to listen if you have suggestions on how I could communicate the message more effectively."

I don’t think it’s in any way “combative” to point out that I am indeed competent and capable of interacting with the online world safely without the assistance patronizing of strangers on the internet. And, whether your intention or not, that’s exactly what your comment was: patronizing. With undertones of “well what did you think would happen when you present yourself in such a way”. Whether you’re willing to admit it or not, comments like yours aren’t helpful — they’re part of the problem.

I'd suggest looking up the "principle of charity".

Additionally, claiming the self-perceived "undertones" as "the real truth" vs clearly (and reasonably) stated (subsequent) stance/explanation indeed is confrontative, at best. In my opinion and experience.

When X claims they know better what was the intent or tone of Y's message when Y is already there precisely elaborating... X has to be realistic, admit no prior knowledge of Y (nor their idiosyncrasies, nor their style of communication), be aware of the limitations of the medium (no voice tone, no body language), and take things at face value as written (and/or ask for explanation/further details in neutral and a non-confrontational way). Y has to do the same. It really is the only way that maintains functionality of the conversation.

(Also, forseeing a potential conflict: X and Y has nothing to do with bio-sex, it just signifies two unknowns.)

At least, that's the self-defined framework I use, as a probably somewhat autistic/ADHD person (people confuse and frustrate me to no end).

Well said.

This is quite similar to a concept in psychology called Theory of Mind (ToM):

> Theory of mind as a personal capability is the understanding that others have beliefs, desires, intentions, and perspectives that are different from one's own.

I have a theory: It is relatively more difficult for people who have faced adversity (whether it be from systemic bias and/or personal situations) to make unemotional assessments when conditions relate to those adverse situations.

@I have a theory:

I would agree, in principle and mostly in practice. However, if one knows better, then they must also know that the same "better" can be done. It is hard, yes, and it takes practice, but is achievable. Exposure therapy of sorts helps immensely. And, if/when feeling overwhelmed, simply ask for a recess and postponement of the discussion. I call it "processing time", and it usually takes a few days, or even longer. I call upon it, when I sense it is required (on my and other side, too).

I also try to familiarize the other side with my own (aforementioned) communication style and idiosyncrasies. I'd say we all seek to at least not be misunderstood, if understanding (in sense of the agreement) is not possible... and being frank and upfront about it - helps.

> And, whether your intention or not, that’s exactly what your comment was: patronizing.

E: Not quite. You perceived the comment as patronizing. This is not a universal assessment. From my point of view, I didn't find it patronizing. I'm not saying I'm right and you are wrong; I'm simply saying it is far from clear cut.

Here is one definition of patronizing that I find useful:

> apparently kind or helpful but betraying a feeling of superiority; condescending

You may think that someone else feels superior to you. That is your assessment, I respect that, and I'll listen. At the same time, it is subjective and is uncertain, because your knowledge is incomplete.

The principle of charity is useful here. I hope you can see alternative interpretations that show N does not perceive himself as superior. In particular, their commentary, in my view, is by and large very thoughtful, with the exception of a few sharp edges (which everyone has). From what I can tell, N's edgier comments came out because they felt attacked.

That's the pattern I see here. A person feels attacked and their communication becomes less charitable and even abrasive. At least two people fell into this trap in this thread. As a community, we don't benefit when this happens, but this is human nature.

The solutions are not easy. In my view, we should try to observe, be thoughtful, and attempt to deescalate tensions. I believe a vast majority of people are here for positive reasons and have plenty to learn from each other.

Now that's just nuts.

I can understand that some people may disagree with and/or not understand what she said, it is both unkind and not helpful to say "Now that's just nuts." The comment does not move the conversation forward in terms of clarification or understanding. The comment does not demonstrate patience nor does it show curiosity of other perspectives.