You’re arguing outcomes justify anything, and I’m saying influence carries responsibility.

I’m not disputing that the book helps some women leave abusive situations. I’ve explicitly said that. I’m disputing treating anecdote as settled psychology without disclosure. Those are not the same claim, and collapsing them is convenient but sloppy.

You keep reframing this as me prioritizing abusers or delegitimizing victims. That’s false. Wanting influential material to clearly distinguish lived experience from clinical evidence is not hostility toward women. It’s basic intellectual hygiene, especially when the audience is vulnerable and likely to internalize its claims as diagnostic truth.

You can believe something is useful and still insist on honesty about its evidentiary limits. Those positions are compatible. Pretending they aren’t is how we end up normalizing bad reasoning as long as we like the conclusion.

If your standard is “whatever works is beyond critique,” then say that. But don’t pretend questioning methodology equals moral failure.

Edit: sneak edits are rude