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).

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 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.

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.