I completely understand why these dogmas were created -- people grew frustrated by having their grievances shunted aside with glib assurance that no harm was intended.

But erasing any referent beyond the subjectivity of the "victim" is not the answer. https://twitter.com/earlkralik/status/1316957158970478592

There is no easy answer here, we can't avoid the exercise of judgment and the application of a reasonableness standard sensitive to the legitimate interests of both parties

Now it's precisely that reasonableness standard that is being litigated.

"I have consulted my own feelings and intentions and hereby declare myself innocent," is the old standard that is being contested.

"I thrust upon you my trauma which you are obliged to treat as dispositive" is the new standard that tutelary institutions are now promulgating.

Both are bad standards.

"We both approach this matter with good faith and empathy and reach an understanding" is the only reasonable path.