It's such a fine line, isn't it? That line between "explain" and "defend." And I think it all depends on perception, which sounds simple, but we've learned by now that simple rarely means easy. Your perception is colored by your history--how hard have you struggled; how comfortable are you with yourself, with claiming your choices whole-heartedly; and have you the skill--and experience--to differentiate between true curiosity and weighted questioning?
And then, of course, the other party's perception is involved--what is their history, how comfortable are they with new ideas, and are they driven by curiosity or by power? Those last two, when manipulated skillfully, can be almost indistinguishable. So back to you--do you ride, by default, on faith? Transparent in every answer? Or is your experience colored by cynicism?
It's no wonder our communication breaks down--so many factors to intuit, to take *time* with, and that's so rarely what we allow ourselves. I have a feeling if we could breathe, pause, study the eyes of the person with whom we're speaking, then that would tell us everything. The intensity of eye contact can rarely steer us wrong or feed us misinformation. (Unless we're dealing with a sociopath. Or a politician. Same difference??? Hmm...). You'll know. Look into their eyes, as scary as that is, as exposing as that is, and load your words with heart--not with suspicion, but with the clear sight of true perception.