Is there a name for this kind of argument?:

“When people say all lives matter, what they’re *really saying* is black lives don’t matter unless they conform to white standards”

“Pronouns in bio are *really about* erasing women as a sex class”

“When you forget my birthday, you’re saying you don’t value the fact that I was even born”

“When you offer women self defense lessons, *what you’re really saying* rape is women’s responsibility”

There are a number of tricks that are used to bolster these arguments:

-Impact over intent. What you said had an emotional impact on me so that’s what it was *really about*

-Plus power definitions: I have less power so we should prioritize my interpretation

-Standpoint theory: If you deny my interpretation is accurate, you’re denying my reality.

In all these cases I’m fine with understanding the emotional impact the statement or action might have, but I don’t want to enshrine that interpretation as “the real truth” or what it’s “really” about.

These arguments are nothing above bold-faced declarations that a hurt and marginalized person might misunderstand someone else or have an excessive/counterproductive emotional reaction.

They take power imbalances, and use them as wedges to force every minor conflict or misunderstanding to the extremes. Instead I think we need deescalate on and mutual understanding.

In conflict resolution, they say to phrase emotions in “I” statements. That‘d be better here.

If something someone said had a negative emotional impact on you, I think it’s based to phrase that as a personal emotional impact, not what someone else’s statement was *really* about.

I’m subtweeting people but I have major respect for them, so if you read this and your ears are burning, I mean no disrespect!!!