Please explain why or how this identifying of transphobia is not directly an attempt to defend Chris, IN THIS CONTEXT, to someone who is autistic, or who may even suffer from some obstinent defiant disorder. FYI:
Some people aren’t hardwired for policing others’ verbiage or for having their own language “policed”, and I think that you are using your best methods you know, but tone of a written message often comes across in whatever way is most convenient to a given reader, which is what I think might be contributing some to the source of the problem (in this miscommunication). Could you format your statement that went along the lines of “don’t mirror transphobic language if you don’t want to appear transphobic” in a way that uses the words “should” and “if” in the same sentence? I find often that such a structure can address matters of internal perspective without presenting an imposing presence to the conversation or dialogue.
Please explain why or how this identifying of transphobia is not directly an attempt to defend Chris, IN THIS CONTEXT, to someone who is autistic, or who may even suffer from some obstinent defiant disorder. FYI: Some people aren’t hardwired for policing others’ verbiage or for having their own language “policed”, and I think that you are using your best methods you know, but tone of a written message often comes across in whatever way is most convenient to a given reader, which is what I think might be contributing some to the source of the problem (in this miscommunication). Could you format your statement that went along the lines of “don’t mirror transphobic language if you don’t want to appear transphobic” in a way that uses the words “should” and “if” in the same sentence? I find often that such a structure can address matters of internal perspective without presenting an imposing presence to the conversation or dialogue.
I didn’t even say their name, dude