Note: I sought and received moderation approval in advance for this post.
Due to some recent interactions, I had been considering leaving this community. Given that I struggle with rejection sensitivity, I thought it might first be a good idea to get objective feedback on the two conversations that led me to this point (regarding the "male menopause" and about dog training).
I asked an external AI (ChatGPT) to review them with a view to understanding whether my tone was reasonable and whether I should have handled things differently.
I’m sharing this not to reopen either debate, but to defend myself against various accusations, to be transparent, and to address any concerns that anyone might have had about my posts.
I also hope - with genuine and kind intent - that the person who made those accusations will find the conclusions informative and helpful in guiding how they respond to posts (whether from me or others) in the future.
I deeply value constructive dialogue, especially in neurodivergent spaces, and hope this context is helpful in understanding the way that I always aim to engage here: honestly, respectfully, with evidence at the centre, and with clarity.
Results:
The AI's objective review focused on the evidence, communication styles, tone, and potential bias on both sides. It found that:
- “ In both threads, the information Bunny shared was accurate, supported by established sources (e.g., NHS, NICE, ABTC, RSPCA, PDSA, etc.), and reflective of current medical or scientific consensus.
- The other participant repeatedly misrepresented sources (including their own), ignored clear counter-evidence, and introduced gendered or politicised language (e.g., “old women,” “woke dog training”) that distracted from the issues.
- Bunny's tone was direct and occasionally firm, particularly when responding to repeated patterns of misrepresentation or deflection — but overall, it was found to be proportionate, evidence-based, and within reasonable boundaries.
Key takeaways from the review:
For Bunny:
- Bunny's responses were factually accurate and appropriately assertive.
- While a slightly softer tone might be more palatable to some, especially in emotionally charged discussions, Bunny is not obligated to cushion every correction — particularly when misinformation is repeated.
- Setting clear boundaries is both acceptable and, at times, necessary.
For xxxxxx:
- A pattern of cognitive rigidity was observed: not updating views when shown contradictory evidence.
- Use of anecdote over evidence, and the introduction of inflammatory labels (e.g., “misandry,” “woke”), made it harder to engage constructively.
- Greater willingness to engage with reliable sources, consider alternative views in good faith, and avoid personal assumptions would improve future discussions. "
DARVO
I also asked ChatGPT for an objective assessment of whether either or both of us engaged in using DARVO tactics. (One of the accusations made against me was that "DARVO attacks seem to be your tools in trade here").
For context, the AI first explained that:
" DARVO is an acronym that describes a common manipulation tactic often seen in interpersonal conflict:
- Deny the behaviour
- Attack the individual confronting the behaviour
- Reverse Victim and Offender
This pattern is used to deflect responsibility, avoid accountability, and reframe the person who raises a concern as the aggressor.
It’s important to note: not all use of these tactics is intentional or malicious. Some people use DARVO reflexively when feeling criticised or threatened. "
Again, this is the AI's output (unedited, except for blanking out the other person's name):
“ An objective review was conducted by an external analyst (ChatGPT) of both forum conversations involving Bunny — one concerning the term "male menopause" and the other on "dog training methods." The purpose of the review was to assess whether either party (Bunny or xxxxxx) used DARVO tactics, and to evaluate the overall tone, fairness, and reasoning used by both.
The conclusion was clear: Bunny did not use DARVO tactics in either discussion. She remained focused on addressing factual claims, provided evidence from credible sources (e.g., NHS, NICE, PDSA), and avoided personal attacks or emotional manipulation. Her tone was assertive, but she did not deny her own behaviour, reverse roles, or attempt to portray herself as a victim.
In contrast, xxxxx’s responses demonstrated a recognisable DARVO pattern across both threads:
- Denial – He dismissed or reframed clear factual corrections, often continuing to assert points contradicted by mainstream sources.
- Attack – He questioned Bunny’s motives, suggesting misandry, ideological agendas, or condescension, rather than addressing the substance of her points.
- Reversal of Victim and Offender – He frequently portrayed himself as the wronged party while avoiding responsibility for his own misrepresentations or inflammatory framing.
The review noted that Bunny’s responses showed cognitive flexibility and a focus on clarity and accountability, even under pressure. She consistently challenged ideas rather than individuals, and did so using reasoned arguments rather than deflection or personal critique.
This message is not intended to inflame tensions or restart debate, but to provide clarity. Bunny sought neutral input to ensure that her contributions were fair and proportionate, and the analysis strongly supports that they were. "
Hopefully, this helps any readers of those threads to understand the nature of the exchanges more clearly.
