No worries. And I split the thread from this one which isn't in G&A. The original thread was AL saying he works with a trans woman and she brought up her past in the marines. So he's wondering why gay men join the marines.

(Sorry for the split, I got hit by the length limit.)

Anyway, I get the feeling that that other thread was basically a big mess, and that what INTroJect was commenting on was really a small portion of that mess. (Specifically, this is actually what his denotation implies, ironically enough, but then he could very well be dodging some additional context that I haven't seen from the other thread.) If my feeling is correct, then your original premise that INTroJect was condoning all the trans-hate that you perceived in that thread wasn't actually valid, and he was instead just commenting on the grammar nitpicks. If that's the case, then you're pretty much the origin of all the nastiness in that thread, since your post is the first one that is angry-hostile, though post 3 is snarky-hostile (but not towards transgender people).

Incidentally, I can't actually find the post by Autumnleaf that was being discussed. I searched for all his posts in G&A and I only found two this year, neither of which have anything to do with being transgender.

I haven't read the other thread. I was assuming, since INTroJect's post didn't directly reference the other thread, that your response pertained to the topic that INTroJect was explicitly talking about, which was grammar nitpicks in regards to transgender individuals.

But again, that is what you *said*, at least in the first post, and the way you were interpreted *was* as being hurtful. Your response to being accused of being hurtful was to be defensive rather than to be conciliatory, including the statement "That's not what I said". That's pretty much what I was commenting on.

There's nothing about being in a defensive position that automatically makes me the one being hostile. Yes, I'm defensive-what was said in the other thread was down right bigotry, the exact kind that trans are usually fighting against and Intro was trying to hand wave it away and call the trans minority (and allies) the oppressors just for pointing it out. That's going to make anyone defensive. However, that doesn't give leeway to read anything someone wants into my post that isn't there. Words and hostility from "in between the lines" are not my words because I never wrote them. In fact, I wrote the opposite in those posts to clarify my position. Take post 10's quote "I'm not degrading gay experience". I think it's pretty clear the reason it came off as the opposite way was from the reader's.....projection? misinterpreting? glazing over key parts? whatever it is, it's not the writer in this case because the position, which counters the implied, is clearly stated in the post.

Posts 4 and 10. I've quoted the relevant portions several times now. Technically your actual response to INTroJect conveying that he was hurt was not hostile, but it was defensive rather than conciliatory and the remainder of that post (post 10) was even more hostile than post 4, so it came off that way.

Wait, where's the hostility, or hint thereof, in the early posts?

No, because this is in fact in subtext. Notice that my description in that post is about linguistic choices which influence everyone's interpretation. The interpretations which I am describing are nowhere near as subjective as you are making them out to be, though they are of course slightly subjective.

At any rate, what you read was interpreted as being hurtful in the first place despite that not being your intent. When you were called out on it, you responded with even more hostility, which only solidified the interpretation that your original intent was hurtful. You then never apologized for your failure of communication, only claimed that that wasn't what you *said* instead of not being what you meant, the implication being that it doesn't matter that INTroJect's interpretation was a hurtful one.

More like my definition of tone in language is closer to subtext and your definition is closer to interpretation.