This is how the thread made me feel: 1. You are an unreliable narrator. (“My SO isn’t a woman”. Somehow I knew you’d make this statement. You are still vague.) 2. You place the burden of understanding elsewhere without taking responsibility for unclear communication. 3. There is a lot of shuffling around framing of your statement. 4. The responsibility of clear communication lies with you. It is not our burden to carry. 5. I do not know you. It’s a big ask to trust your word when everything you have communicated says the opposite. 6. This is a manipulative tactic that is very subtle but not uncommon.

I want to say that I did feel attacked but because I chose not to get triggered by it, I was able to make a few more observations. But I respect your request and will not further this discussion as you will likely construe it as criticism and uncalled for..

There is nothing further to discuss. Thanks for engaging thus far. It gave me something to ponder over.

> You are an unreliable narrator.

Everything I've said is true. I think you object to not indulging your curiosity about details of my life; I'm not here to be a narrator, I'm here to discuss an article.

> “My SO isn’t a woman”.

That isn't what I said; I told you that you making suppositions. I have neither said my SO is or is not a woman. If you think you know whether they are, the only explanations that I can see are that you've mistaken someone else's comment for mine, misread one of my comments, or that you have confidence in stereotypes.

> Somehow I knew you’d make this statement.

You are likely experiencing confirmation bias. You felt so confident in what I would say that you "knew" it, and didn't listen to what I actually did say.

> You are still vague.

I told you I was doing this intentionally. It should be pretty clear from context that it is to protect my privacy; I don't have to justify withholding personal information. If you didn't interpret my telling you that

> The responsibility of clear communication lies with you. It is not our burden to carry.

I think I've been crystal clear with you, I think you're not reading what I've said very closely. You're explaining criticism to me I've already acknowledged, telling me to get a therapist I've already mentioned having, etc. I don't know what your thought process is, but it seems like you're interpreting my declining to elaborate on details as a deception. It isn't. I told you I wasn't at liberty to discuss this.

> I do not know you. It’s a big ask to trust your word when everything you have communicated says the opposite.

Forums run on the presumption of good faith. But believe what you want, I asked you not to rant at me about how I need to fix my relationship with my SO because of problems you suppose we have. I'm not this person you imagine me to be; I don't really want to hear the criticism you intend for this person.

> This is a manipulative tactic that is very subtle but not uncommon.

There's no manipulation. I think you're ascribing entirely different motives to me than I actually have, and not believing me when I tell you I'm discussing an article, and that my statements are related to an article. So I think that when I made my comments, you interpreted them in an entirely different context than I created them, and imagined me to be some sort of monster.