Herein lies the problem with the argument though. You get to define when it has happened to you. There is no objective standard by which 'harm' can be measured - it is very easy to see when people have been physically hurt or killed by the actions of another - it is more complex when 'harm' is self diagnosed.

I could, for example, say that this article has caused me harm. Reading it made me feel anxious about the outside world and more fearful about my existence. I could say that your view of the world and your writing causes me distress. In my world you have the 'perpetrator mentality'.

Now you have only three recourses under this situation. You can apologise to me for the harm you've committed and accept that you caused me (and all of penguin-kind) accute distress, and that you won't write any more articles. You can ask for evidence of the harm you've caused because you think you should be allowed to write what you want regardless of my apparent distress. Or you can reject my world view that posits you as the 'predator' as patently ridiculous.

I should warn you that requesting evidence of demonstrable harm or rejecting another person's internalised concept of harm (however silly you may think it is) are objections that are rapidly becoming unavailable in the modern world. Discourse and debate rapidly turns into an endless and meaningless apology circle

In short - there's no advantage to true victim blaming as it's reprehensible to do so, most sane and sensible people would agree with this. However, this must be tempered by considering who gets to self-identify as 'victim' - and what doing so means for society in general. Identity politics remains an endless game of snap where everyone races to demonstrate their victim credentials and outflank everyone else into the 'guilty' position. As you did in your very well written article, and I have likewise done in my comment.