[Help] Should I stay with an advisor like this?

Hi Mudpit family, this time it's my turn to emo and ask for help. This post is long, but I just want to explain things clearly.

Background: Philosophy PhD at a strong university in the South, family has some money, the fellowship the school gives me each month is less than what my health insurance reimburses, so no financial worries. I have EU PR, so whether I study or not doesn't really matter; worst case I drop out and just can't churn the card. Just started writing my dissertation this year, haven't even finished the first chapter, expected to graduate in 2-3 years. On Thursday I had a big fight with my advisor—not really a big fight (it was all my advisor unilaterally high-intensity outputting at me based on miscommunication and misunderstanding). Because I was truly baffled at being scolded (plus I'm a bit autistic to begin with), I was shaking all over and crying, and stayed in the psychiatric care unit for two days (thanks to the skiing forum friends, these days I've relied on this drama as spiritual support).

Reason for the dispute: (1) The trigger was truly baffling, a textbook case of miscommunication and misunderstanding. The root is the chair's personality. My dissertation chair/supervisor is an American white woman with extremely strong boundaries; what can and cannot be done is very strict. She has a red line: since she is the chair, all papers in the dissertation must be discussed and communicated with her first. When I first entered the program in my first year, I asked her whether I could work more on a certain paper with other professors, and she said no—the idea and origin of the paper must come from her, and only when it's more or less formed can it be taken to others to read and discuss. Although it sounds a bit strict, she is basically hands-off about what I specifically write and how; apart from meetings every 2-3 weeks, she doesn't interfere in any private life, has extremely strong boundaries, and is very busy herself. But this atmosphere also planted hidden risks for conflict.

(2) The cause of this incident: this semester I wanted to apply for a prestigious external fellowship, which requires two recommendation letters. I communicated well with the chair in advance, but I also needed another person, so I needed a second-position German professor to write one (let's call him Professor SB). SB is pure German, and never takes students—in over 20 years at the school he has never mentored a single PhD student as director (and he never replies to PhD students' emails). But I flattered myself into thinking I was on good terms with him: I took three of his courses and was his TA for a year (since I'm half Austrian). This semester I contacted him and he never replied, and with the deadline approaching, I went to the director and asked to remove this person from my dissertation committee. The chair had no objection, but she felt she needed to communicate first to understand the situation. She also made clear that if the second person didn't write, the third person would take over directly, and this process went smoothly. Before going to them I had communicated with the chair! And I didn't send them anything different from what I sent the chair.

(3) The problem arose after the chair communicated with Professor SB. To save face (he has a very strong ego; in the past people begged him to be their advisor, and now suddenly a student wants him to leave directly), he told my advisor: "I am afraid that I might share conflict views with the chair and I am not comfortable with starting a new project with the student, which essentially bypass the chair." Plus, by then I had already arranged the recommendation letter with the third person, and all these signs made my chair believe I was doing things behind her back, fighting on three fronts, writing two papers at the same time without her knowledge, directly crossing her red line.

On Thursday she directly gave me an angry Zoom call, saying I breached her trust (she's the kind of American auntie who, once emotional, must output everything; after outputting, you don't know whether she accepted your explanation). I endured it and explained everything, and she seemed a bit regretful about saying these things, then turned around and pretended to discuss the paper with me.

But after this call, I completely had a mental breakdown (literally like, I am minding my own business but someone came and struck my head). I couldn't sleep for two nights, shaking all over with somatization, and started crying as soon as I opened my laptop screen—I don't even know what I was crying about. Then I also emailed the chair to clarify her concerns, and demanded that Professor SB must be removed from my committee.

Follow-up: That evening I sought help from the department head, and we met the next morning. I was worried I wouldn't be able to cry, but five minutes in, I couldn't control it and wailed in front of everyone in the office, scaring a bunch of white people to death. The department head was willing to mediate, contacted all parties involved, and that same day promised me that next week there would be a multi-party meeting to mediate this conflict.

1. I want to ask the forum friends: Can I stay with an advisor like this? Or should I take this opportunity to change advisors?

Actually, she and I get along very well in terms of vibe, just very distant; our approaches to doing philosophy also match, and she is relatively supportive academically. But as I said, her worst point may be her personality—she's the American auntie type, no scheming, but once there's a problem she outputs at high intensity. This personality of hers often steps on my red lines too. I'm occasionally sensitive; I don't mind academic criticism much, but this kind of baffling personal attack is bad for mental health. I'm wondering: if she can admit her mistake in the multi-party meeting, would that count as this matter being over for me as a student?

If I change advisors, it's not impossible—just that I can't do my current topic anymore, but I've only just started for 2 months, so the cost of completely scrapping and restarting isn't big. If I change advisors, several people in the department could do it, but then I couldn't do my current favorite topic. Also, in this matter, the department head has his own little calculations: he has always wanted to be on my committee, didn't get in before, and now that one person has left, he'd love to get in and even wants to be chair.