Abstract: It has been widely discussed that systematic communicative disablements – such as disbelief, misinterpretation and unintelligibility – can be unjust. Our communicative practises extend beyond merely sharing information; we also share and contest which questions are worth answering, which answers suffice, what parts of our shared body of information matter. This is a central aspect of our social epistemic practices. One way we do this is via perspectival communication in which what one communicates includes an interpretive stance or ‘way of looking’ at the world, via frames like metaphor and narrative. In this paper, I consider how perspectival communication may be wrongfully frustrated, constituting an unjust communicative disablement. I analyse how perspectival communication can be distorted due to dominant ‘mis-interpretive’ resources. I specifically examine the way in which marginalised people’s testimony relating to their own experience of marginalisation, may be misinterpreted in such a way as to justify and perpetuate that marginalisation thereby ‘backfiring’. Moreover, I highlight that attempts to counter hermeneutical injustice are especially vulnerable to this form of communicative disablement.