[seba_dos1]

Putting the logical fallacies you just committed aside, now imagine that E is a schizophrenic who believes that everyone out there is conspired to bully, abuse, harass and emotionally or physically harm him due to being straight. E cannot make friends or relationships of any kind, does not have a support network, can't find employment, may receive some health care or not.

It really doesn't matter whether this feeling is imagined or not. Even merely a threat that never gets actualized may be enough of a stressor to cause serious issues.

[nis0s]

I admit the scenario is contrived, but that’s to make a point. Feel free to construct your own scenario that’s not a non sequitur.

But the E scenario is also fallacious, doesn’t matter if E is schizophrenic if the conspiracy is real. Maybe E’s detractors would like others to think E is schizophrenic, or the symptoms they want to cast as schizophrenic are a stress response to the targeted harassment.

[seba_dos1]

One could make a completely opposite point just by slightly editing your scenarios.

Make B be charming and charismatic enough that C and D's attempts get laughed off and backfire. Make A be so affected by having to live in secrecy that it puts a real strain on the relationship with the person they care about the most. Now surely it would be A who ends up under "more stress", right?

Except you can't even say that, because "level of stress" is not an objectively measurable quantity that exists somewhere in the environment. You can be stressed out by things I get excited about. Someone else will shrug out a risk that makes me terrified. You could be under distress because some lights have blinked too fast, yet it doesn't mean that these lights have targeted you with their harassment.

[nis0s]

Sure, but what’s the point of these adjustments? You were making a false equivalency between two different circumstances, and saying that there’s effectively no difference between them. I presented a scenario where the difference between them is indisputable, that is person B has an objectively worse situation and potential outcome. Experiencing stress and being in distress are not the same. If you’re still having a hard time admitting this, then imagine you have a child. Which situation should that child live under, A’s or B’s?

[seba_dos1]

If you still don't see the point of these adjustments, I'm afraid it may be beyond my abilities to teach you to see it. Each of the scenarios presented can lead to either experiencing stress or being in distress, ability to take it varies between individuals and there's no category of scenarios that always leads to "objectively worse situation" (whatever it means) as you're trying to present it, making it a distinction without a difference in this context as for whatever you'd try to argue, you can find an example from the other category that fulfills it too and that has potential to lead to the same outcomes when it comes to health.

[nis0s]

I think some people fear that the political or social status of protected classes may diminish by admitting that someone could have a worse life than them despite not being of a protected class. It doesn’t diminish for me, so I have no problem saying that there could be instances where being a protected class isn’t as bad another circumstance for someone who isn’t such a person. It truly depends, everyone’s life is different, and there are indeed worse lives than others, even if it’s someone you normally wouldn’t consider as worse off.