It still seems strange for "how the hell should I know" to ellicit such a reaction. Even if/when it's considered a curse, it's not aimed at anyone. It's strange to me to see someone take the defensive when they're not being attacked.
I'd imagine that as much as anything, this is about 911 dispatching being a thoroughly unnatural role. On one end of the phone, it's a life-and-death crisis, but on the other it's the twelfth call of an eight-hour shift. Miscommunication across that kind of gap seems inevitable.
If you're not offended, I have to try harder to convey my indignity, you naughtyhead.
Some people interpret the very act of cursing as incivility, regardless of the purpose, and some people only view it as uncivil if it is meant to be uncivil.
Personally, I don’t agree that the only reason to curse is to offend. In my mind, curse words have a very specific meaning and sometimes they are by far the most appropriate word for a situation.
I would liken it to using words that describe parts of the human anatomy. There are some people who would never say the word penis in polite company, but sometimes it’s just the only word for the job.
Also, I’m not suggesting that my interpretation is the only reasonable one, just that I think there are widely varying positions.
Of course it depends on the social context. I'm not going to be swearing much at all at work and still feel a little startled (not offended, just surprised and maybe vaguely uncomfortable) when my manager drops an F-bomb or two. Yet around friends and family, F-bombs (and C-bombs [1] around close friends!) are almost used like exclamation points, purely to draw emphasis and attention to a statement.
I can only conclude it's one of those cultural things. So while I respect that some people find swearing deeply offensive and particularly only useful to offend, that's a really alien concept to me.
[1] F-bomb and C-bomb are slang terms referring to f..k and c..t respectively.
I recommend nonviolent communication, the book and the practice. Teaches the ability to “translate” highly charged conversations into basic human needs and feelings.
For the dispatcher, the question was sensible because "I don't know" is one fork in triage that helps separate from answers like "she's diabetic so maybe her blood sugar dropped". For the caller, it feels like he's expected to have an answer and isn't getting helped by the dispatcher, particularly if he already knows that he doesn't have any useful information.
From a completely dispassionate view, the dispatcher still got his answer: no known cause, continue to step 2. But as far as training dispatchers, it raises all kinds of questions: Can you reorder the questions to get the caller's observations and then their knowledge? Can you rephrase 'why?' so that "I don't know" feels like part of the process and not a breakdown of it? Can you prepare the dispatcher better to deescalate or ignore the hostility instead of worsening it?
Emergency Medical Dispatch is a fascinating case study of technical communication in general. Lots of jobs train people to communicate urgent information clearly, but EMD has exceptionally specific limitations. Only one side of the call is trained, so you can't rely on rehearsed protocols like EMTs or police officers would. And the priority of information is completely unintuitive to most of us because it's not just importance, but sequencing: info needed to dispatch an ambulance comes first, then info to help the caller do first aid, and only after that the seemingly crucial stuff like "what's actually making them sick".