[catskul2]

I've always thought describing "whataboutism" as a logical fallacy as misunderstanding the broader picture.

I don't think that most people who use "whataboutism" are actually arguing that the "whatabout" logically negates the adversary, but rather politically negates the adversary. I.e. "you might be right about my behavior, but why should I pay the cost of changing if you don't yourself change".

If it's approached as a political argument rather than a logical one, or rather that the politics are acknowledged, then it's easier to get around it and return to the logic part: e.g. "You're right that there are things I do that might need to change, and I'm willing to talk about that. I'd like to address this first."

There are also reasons to address both things at once as admitting fault early results in ceding bargaining power to the adversary when there's not trust that they'll be as honest in their own assessment once you've been honest with your own.