There are points in here that have value but they are not a reasonable (or particularly relevant) as a reply to the objection that Silas has made. Silas makes enough of a target of himself. You need not pad him out with straw.

I'm objecting to your attempt to claim that two phrasings mean the same thing, when they really don't

The meaning of the communication is the response you get, and the intended response to the behavior described as "ordering around" is that the woman feel that she is with a man who "knows what he wants and isn't afraid to say it".

No. The intended response to the behaviour is not that. Or, at least, it is not just that. You can not demand that Silas use language that does not express what he is trying to say just because it happens to fit neatly into your own model.

More generally, it is unreasonable to expect people to comply to the quote from the NLP guru, regarding the meaning of a communication, least of all on a site that emphasises epistemic rationality. Yes, it is a useful concept but your appeal to 'the meaning is the response' to try to reverse a claim of who is distorting the communication is 'clever' but far from sound.

But clearly, it is NOT uninformative to women!

Your words do not convey the information (to women, or anyone else) that Silas was trying to convey. Don't insist that he use them.

And just because at one time you didn't understand what this woman-speak means in men-speak, does not entitle you to claim that all women are therefore deluded, unhelpful liars and hypocrites, engaging in a campaign of mass deception to keep oppressed low-status men in their place with the conspiratorial assistance of the mass media.

You are taking significant liberty in applying negative spin to Silas's claims here. More liberty than that which you presume to deny Silas in his claims. Be consistent.