One of the easiest traps to fall into as a relatively privileged person in a field grappling with systematic exclusion: becoming the “voice of reason” in conversations where insiders perceive those pushing for change as “radical” or “angry.”
It’s tricky because it feels like you’re making progress. You’re using your position as an insider to affect change! You’re getting through to them! Yay!
And then someone says, “I wish more <marginalized person> could explain things less combatively, like you do…”
And then you realize, “Ahhhh, shit. I’m now the safe option that lets insiders dismiss the insiders as shrill and overly-emotional.”
It takes bending over backwards to avoid that framing, calling out the validity of those peoples’ input…
…and explaining to the “insiders” that it’s easier to be patient and less “strident” when the systems and behaviors and harms being discussed aren’t constantly grinding you down.
On occasion, I’ve compared it to Agile’s “Chickens and Pigs” metaphor, which is used to explain why managers shouldn’t be allowed to estimate task difficulty for developers. We may both CARE about the outcome but I don’t bear the same RISK.
Anyways, my point wasn’t to say that I’ve figured out how to AVOID this issue, just that I’m more and more aware of the danger and am having to work to consciously work against it rather than just “trying to convince people” in isolation.