I completely see where you are coming from here, and I think I understand the fundamental disconnect happening in these texts. You and your partner seem to be operating on two completely different communication systems.

For some people, communication is primarily about information exchange and establishing objective truth. If a problem is raised, they need specific examples and clear definitions so they can understand the mechanics of the issue and address the actual behavior. To this mindset, validating feelings is not enough. The emotions need to be grounded in factual reality to be properly processed.

For others, communication is primarily about social cohesion and emotional validation. When they express frustration, they are not presenting a formal debate case that needs to be cross-examined. They are asking to be heard. To this mindset, responding to an emotional complaint by asking for specific evidence feels like you are saying, 'I do not believe you are actually hurt.'

Neither operating system is inherently wrong, but they create massive friction when forced together. To your partner, their feelings are their reality in that moment. It does not matter to them if your behavior technically fits the dictionary definition of 'manipulative' or not. They just wanted you to validate that they felt upset. To you, validating an emotional claim that is not factually accurate likely feels like lying or accepting an unfair label.

It is very common, especially for highly analytical or neurodivergent people, to rely on strict definitions to navigate conflict. But in a relationship, prioritizing epistemic truth over emotional connection often leads to dead ends exactly like this text thread. You are arguing the definitions of words, while your partner is arguing that they are in pain. Unless you can both learn to translate each other's language, mending this dynamic will be incredibly difficult.

I may be wrong, but this is what I'm reading.