But then I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt.
I see now this was a mistake.
You said you couldn't see how "Do you need any help?" could possibly be negative. I tried to offer a scenario that could help you understand. I did so in good faith.
I don't really appreciate you turning that into an attack.
No, I wouldn't ask if she needed help. Women aren't helpless. But mentally ill people might be.
Based on what you've just said, can you see how assuming a mentally ill person is helpless can be a negative to them? As you say, asking if they need help carries the implication they are helpless.
If you observe them and they seem to be getting along fine, why assume they're helpless? Why imply that by asking if they need help?
I understand how people might be slighted by an offer of assistance. I just thought that by definition, mentally ill people need help. It's in the name.
But this whole experience has been pretty eye-opening, so I don't know what to think anymore.
To be clear, my intent was to take a situation where the condescension of the question was clear so that you could then see how it could apply elsewhere. So I picked a situation where you'd (hopefully!) have that immediate understanding.
I feel "mentally ill" is a problematic term for just the reasons you imply. Illness implies a desire to be well, and it's natural to want to help people who are ill.
Assuming someone is unhappy with their situation implies they should be unhappy with it, that something's wrong with it. And if they aren't unhappy, and they're constantly being told they should be (indirectly, through the question), you can see how it could be very frustrating and perhaps even harmful to them.
Some people do need help. Those who are obviously incapable of taking care of their basic needs.
A million years ago I dated a woman who worked as in home care for a seriously mentally ill woman. The woman being cared for had someone with her, 24 hours a day, basically making sure she didn't hurt herself and was fed and so on. The woman got to live in her own home, and the state paid for the in-home care. Which to be honest, was barely-trained college age women making like $10 an hour.
I had mixed feelings about the situation. She probably could have gotten "better" help in some sort of facility. But on the other hand, she was given the dignity of the minimal help necessary for her to get by. Does that make sense? From that perspective, I thought it was a humane thing for society to do.
I won't comment on the rest of the scenario because it's intentionally very different and not an analogy.
More seriously, though, how about reaching to everyone who is visibly having trouble.
For example, someone who is hell banned yet posts constantly for months, is likely not getting along fine.
A new programmer is hired in your office, who happens to be a woman.
She seems to doing ok in her new job, getting things done. She seems fine with it. Her boss seems fine with it. Neither her nor her boss show any signs of dissatisfaction with her work situation.
Do you go by every now and then while she's working and ask "Hey, do you need any help?" You don't habitually ask anyone else that question.
Do you see how that could be a negative? Do you understand why she might take it as condescending?