> Because we live in a world.. We live in a world consisting of different, distinct societies and community groups. In some of those groups "women are treated

> Because we live in a world.. We live in a world consisting of different, distinct societies and community groups. In some of those groups "women are treated as less important/intelligent than me"; But this is not true of all groups - so whose norms do we assume in online conversation? > we must try not to promote that stereotype with lies There is a difference between "sounds like" and "is". If you believe a lie is being told, refute it rather than attack a persons' character. > So things like .. are ok to say? In relevant context, if it exists, yes. Neither of those things seem like they would be relevant to this thread. > All the articles posted in HN about salaries.. That's still something you had to provide evidence for, and couldn't just be assumed. So long as it's an objective subject, the personal attack is not justified. Plus, there are HN articles that "debunk" the gender pay/wage gap too. > the gap only happens with age, >35, where the position is important (it means less women in top positions) Who says that's what it means. "over 35" means exactly just "over 35". Your interpretation that it's "top positions" as the relevant factor is just one explanation. "men work longer hours over longer periods of time" is another explanation, that is not refuted by your example. The question wasn't backed, but neither was your own until just now (after the PA). There is no way to definitively answer "How [the claim] is not disrespectful" since "disrespect" is subjective. It seems uncommon to treat something that is true or plausible as disrespectful though, so let's focus on plausibility instead.