I take issue with every part of it. The claim that the other person’s experience is dangerous, that it’s insane, that it’s harming children, and that they didn’t experience it.

You didn't really engage with what I said at all, except at the most superficial level. It's really not a very nice way to have a conversation, especially given that regardless of whether or not I agree I was absolutely trying to help you.

I’m sorry but I’m not sure I understand what you’re trying to get from me here.

You said:

> You may have issues with specific things that were said (or how they were said), but that isn't clear from your response. Perhaps you could add that, so the author can learn.

I addressed those specifics, as far as I can tell all of the specifics of substance. I was engaging your suggestion in good faith. I did take and accept it as helpful. I’m open to the possibility there’s some nuance I’m missing?

In that case I apologise.

The nuance that I think you are missing is that the OP is talking about how the experience shouldn't be generalised and turned into a rule: The person responded to said that sitting at the girl's table should be an indicator that starts consideration of "maybe this is gender dysphoria". The OP thinks this is dangerous and harmful to children in it's proposed form.

I'm missing a lot of cultural context here (What is a "girl's table"?), but I can definitely see the point OP is trying to make. I'll agree with you it was worded problematically.

Thank you for explaining your perspective, I understand the disconnect much better now. I went back and read the comment (the “girl’s table” one, not the “dangerous” response), and even trying to apply your clarification I still don’t read it as generalizing. I see that commenter applying to themselves and their own experience a more general statement from the comment above. In other words I see them identifying with it personally, not applying it to anyone else.

I claimed zero of those things, so maybe you misread the comment.

I read it again and it still reads the same way to me. Maybe you’d be willing to clarify what you did mean?