> And while one might say that shouldn’t matter in a logical discussion, the fact is that the life experiences of these maligned groups are outside the realm of

> And while one might say that shouldn’t matter in a logical discussion, the fact is that the life experiences of these maligned groups are outside the realm of experience of the author, and of other straight white men Why are you treating all "straight white men" as if they had identical life experiences? Do you suppose that the author's "realm of experience" could tell us anything useful about the lives of e.g. poor whites in Appalachia, or in poor parts of the Midwest that are now ravaged by the opioid epidemic? What's the point of bringing up this ascribed group identity, other than as a clear indication of bias (negatively-valenced homogeneity)? And the notion that "rational discussion" should be avoided simply because some people might feel frustrated by it seems especially unhelpful: plenty of people, even very prominent people, feel "frustrated" by rational discussion of climate change, does this mean that it's morally wrong to discuss the best way of saving our way of life on this planet in the face of an urgent threat to it? Obviously not. But our stance on such issues as possible racism or sexism is also quite important, on its own terms - so it should be just as amenable to rational discussion.