What I Meant vs What They Heard
I said: “I am fed up with the bitches trying it on with me.”
What many people heard was a blanket insult against all women.
The reaction followed immediately: this is proof of misogyny. Bad person. Case closed.
What I actually meant was narrower and more specific. I was describing a particular pattern of behaviour . The repeated, boundary-ignoring, entitlement-driven conduct of certain individuals who had already been told 'no'. In the adult register I grew up with, “bitches” in that sentence functions as behavioural shorthand. It points at the conduct, not at an entire sex. It intends to determine a subjective behaviour, not objective genitalia. It is a coarse but precise tool for naming a recognisable style of interaction: the one that treats another person’s stated limits as optional or irrelevant.
The gap between those two readings is the entire problem.
Once the word is treated as radioactive, the original statement becomes almost impossible to discuss on its own terms. Attention shifts from the behaviour being described to the speaker’s alleged moral failure for using the word at all. The person who named the pattern is placed on the defensive and required to justify their vocabulary before the pattern itself can be examined. That move is highly effective. It derails the conversation, consumes energy, and often prevents the underlying issue from ever being addressed.
This is language policing used as a control tactic. It does not require the offended party to engage with what was actually being claimed. It only requires them to treat the surface word as proof of bad character. Intent is declared irrelevant. Context is declared irrelevant. The only thing that matters is the most expansive, least charitable possible reading.
I am not interested in defending every historical use of the word. I am interested in the right to use functional shorthand for observed behaviour without the discussion being immediately converted into a referendum on whether I hate women. The individuals in question had ignored an explicit refusal of domination. That is the conduct I was naming. Refusing to look at the conduct because the descriptor is unfashionable does not make the conduct disappear. It only makes it harder to talk about cleanly.
There is a difference between communication tools and loyalty tests. One tries to point at reality. The other tries to force the speaker into a posture of permanent apology. I know which of those two I was doing. The fact that some listeners prefer the second reading does not change the first.
Gamifying What I Meant Verses What They Heard