If you think he meant well, yet you think his comment could be misinterpreted, you could highlight where you think his comment could be misinterpreted and offer

If you think he meant well, yet you think his comment could be misinterpreted, you could highlight where you think his comment could be misinterpreted and offer a more suitably qualified statement that all parties could agree upon. Both mekoka and TazeTSchnitzel did just that, and I do it when people make stupid racist comments, too, for instance (I live in South Africa and sadly this still happens more often than I'd like). It's a non-confrontational way of dealing with the difference in opinion, and critically, gives people an opportunity to move forward while saving face. Some people don't think giving a diplomatic exit is appropriate in -ism scenarios, but I prefer giving people an opportunity to change their opinions - and the reality is that if you try to tell someone they are sexist or are racist you will never get through to them because their ego defences will kick in, but if you point out, with sensitivity, that their statement is unfair in some way they 'seem' to have missed, you give them an opportunity to grow because you didn't involve their ego. Remember that most people's opinions are handed down from friends/family/social programming and seldom subject to introspection; they may be just embarrassed by what they've said as you are, but most people lack the self esteem to admit they're wrong openly. If you give them some sense of self respect despite their gaffe they often appreciate it. In my experience most people pick up that if they don't deal fairly with reality as you propose then they'll have to admit they are sexist/racist/etc. and they quickly learn to revise their statements. Of course some people really are sexist or racist and don't care, but then at least you won't have to worry about misinterpretation once they freely acknowledge that.