I'd say you should stop worrying about what is "politically correct" and actually examine what is happening in a social context.

I know what you meant perfectly well. My point is that your argument was disingenuous.

The idea of a "golden age" tends to annoy me in general. Most of the time it used in the context of wistful nostalgia about how great something the world was in the past, while not even thinking about what made it great .

Um… we do prosecute manslaughter to the same degree as murder. Both are crimes.

Yeah… but the problem is intention shouldn't be taken into account here. The point of issue is how people are affected by bigotry, not whether someone meant it or not. This effect is occurring whether someone means to do it or not.

Worse still: working in a soup kitchen is addressing an entirely different issue than feminist commentary and philosophy. Someone falling to do the former does not make the latter illegitimate in any way.

That analogy is inaccurate because the problem we are talking about is not secondary in the context of unintentional bigotry.

This is blatantly false because the issue in question extends beyond what is said in the moment.

I'm rather wary of this sort to thing because it stinks of creating a false narrative of success about other issues.

The issue is that the social consequences of being born a woman are defined on how we categorise someone because of their biology.

The reason they don't differentiate between "actual hateful and bigoted speech" and and "out of context slip-up" is because, with respect to issues of oppression, the latter can be just as bad.

She is (at least going off what has been stated in the article) sort of right: the assumption women are straight or will be interested in men is bound-up with expectations they are meant to be with men.

I'm afraid I can only add to the army of I.

It could be more than that. If the claim is acting a a proxy for social capital, it is about more than just penis quality.

To me "large minority" read as "a smaller group which is nevertheless significant." I think all this hand-wringing of what makes a minority/majority is missing the point. "Large" appears to marking the minority as significant in terms of value, as opposed to talking about some specific number of people.

At least you didn't make certain typo when writing firsties…

I think it is a bit deeper than merely a question of what genre a character appears in.

The question I would ask is there anything to that reaction other than being somewhat of an arsehole. Why are some people real voted by the thought of gay sex? How does this relate the idea gay sex is immoral?

"Agency" tends to get used when people are talking about others who unjustly restrict the others through how they understand them (which is why it used so much debates about the impact of culture on individuals). In this respect, I think it has a bit of different meaning than either "autonomy" of "volition."

I'd argue Mr. Incredible did hate him in a way that matters.