That's just embedding your conclusion into your premises.

I embedded what I took as your characterization (trifle) and the possibility of misinterpretation. Rereading it, looks like you didn't particularly commit to the where this stood on the scale, and the possibility of misinterpretation was a reality!

C has posted an update:

I think it was a genuine mistake/misunderstanding and not a deliberate attempt to alienate anyone. I don't know how the other woman took the whole situation. I know it pushed my you-don't-belong-here button, and I responded based on that. The whole thing would have gone better if I had responded more charitably.

"If I had responded more charitably". Yes. Grant him the presumption of basic good will, and see whether the data is compatible with that.

C's response was "Are you saying that because she's wearing heels and lipstick?".

Is that an accusation of a moral affront?

I think moral affront was taken and given. Yes. I believe that was the whole point. She was offended at what she took as some implication of the question, deeming it likely to offend.

I wasn't there; were you? If not, we're likely both responding not just to the story as written, but to movies we're playing in our respective heads as we read the words.

I made the same point elsewhere. Yes, it's a big problem that we're all inevitable filling in the blanks and commenting on our individual hallucinations. These kind of discussions without shared concretes have a high degree of built in divisiveness to overcome, giving the tendency to hallucinate in our own favor.