Thanks, Rex, for this thoughtful response and critical analysis. First my disclaimer -- for the very reasons you mention, I tend to avoid terms such as White fragility when talking in mixed audiences. Why use words that can offend people when I can make the same point with less offensive terms? Most White people will not understand the context in which I (and many people who have observed the phenomenon) have observed it, so why go there?

But here we are. You asked, so I am responding. The question you raise is whether the term describes a specific behavior unique to White people that would not apply to other groups. My answer is yes. The term has meaning beyond a tribal reaction to one's group being insulted. As a term, it evokes a very specific set of rreactions.

Before I explain, what it is, I will say that I do believe there are cultural traits among groups, and identifying those traits as a group phenomenon does not mean that ALL members of that group share those traits. It means the trait is common enough among group members that it is identified as such. Let's take the term "elitism." Elitism is common across all tribal affiliations, but it shows up differently in different groups. Let's take three different elite groups: corporate elites, academic elites, and the in-crowd elite group in high school (e.g. football stars). Elitism is a common phenomenon across the groups, but shows up very differently in the context of that group. The academic elite criticizes your intelligence or schooling. The corporate elite insults your job status or income. The football stars insults your physical capability or popularity. All elites have different ways to establish their superiority.

So let' s compare White fragility with Black fragility as an example. A key difference is the ability to rally support in a mixed group. White fragility shows up with very specific behaviors:

-- Shock at being told they had engaged in some offensive behavior because they were unaware that what they did or said was offensive

-- dismay at being identified as part of a group vs as an individual,

-- shift the blame (as you mentioned) so that the offender (the White person who said or did something offensive) perceives themselves as a victim and does not examine or question what they did to earn the label,

--tearful (or indignant) bids for sympathy from bystanders consistent with the belief that they are the real victims here -- AND receipt of that sympathy so that the person originally offended is now the bad guy

-- (often) confusion as to the difference between White fragility and White supremacy which enables them to claim they certainly can't be that since they assert they hold egalitarian beliefs,

-- because of the above, discounting of their original offense, so they never learn from the experience and may repeat the offense again, convinced they are the innocents and the person who referred to their reactions as White fragility is the real perpetrator, and supported in that belief by other Whites around them, AND

-- the person who was originally offended now left holding the bag, feeling devalued, still offended with no resolution, and possibly shunned by supporters of the fragile White person.

I have seen and heard this over and over again. This is why the term became a thing. In fact, when the term first came out, the reaction of virtually every Black person I know was laughter in recognition. The phrase cracked us up. We were amazed at how accurate was Robin DeAngelis's depiction of the phenomenon. It was as though a family secret had been revealed.

In general (not in every single case, obviously) a White person who offends and responds with the White fragility syndrome can garner sympathy and support most of the time from other Whites. A Black person who offends and responds similarly (tearful or indignant bid for support from bystanders) will be regarded as weak or having a chip on their shoulder (again, in general). They won't be able to get away with denial or shifting of blame.

Let's take "gun owner fragility". A gun owner, similarly insulted, is not likely to dissolve into tears or bid for support from witnesses. Instead, they have a gun which is a formidable enough source of protection. :-)

It pains me to say this all. I realize this is subject to misinterpretation. Yet I fervently want us to learn how to live and work together in a multicultural society, so understanding these distinctions across tribes (social groups( is necessary to move forward together.

Please let me know if you have further comments or questions. Thanks for responding.