Then... why did you use words like "misinterpretation" instead of "miscommunication"?

They have different meanings, one applied and the difference mattered.

Saying "oh, both people were unclear, it looks like we were talking past one another " is far better than the approach you took.

Not for the purpose of my statement. There could even be place for an additional message that the kind of behavior I described is antisocial, rude and highly undesirable. Sufficiently objectionable as to make all considerations of 'bluntness' trivial by comparison.

as well as dismissal by bringing up "social politics" in contrast to "logical reasoning." (If you were to gender those two phrases, which would be which?)

You ask that question as though it should provide some rhetorical support for a point you were making. It appears instead to be loosely related tangent. I meant precisely what I said about social politics and logic. It is a message that is helpful for people who encounter questions like the one Phil asked and seek genuine understanding of how such situations work.

Questions of "should" just aren't about creating a coherent protocol of behavior. Sometimes a coherent protocol emerges and that is great but ultimately having situations in which you are 'doomed if you do; doomed if you don't' a standard part of how social rules work. The trick to navigating them is to stop expecting reason to apply and start gaming them like everyone else.