Well such use of hyperbole is needless and really only counterproductive. It's not really my place to say what you should and shouldn't do though.Undeadpool said:
Anyway, I've already established that potential implication is a flimsy basis for such a rebuttal. You conflating two concepts doesn't somehow actually make them identical or interchangeable. It seems like you're just filling in the blanks for yourself and trying to shoehorn my comment's meaning into your own hastily conceived interpretation.
Besides, I've already shown how your rebuttal is off base. My use of sexism in describing my situation is apt. My coworkers are making assumptions/decisions about the allocation of workloads based on predefined gender roles that aren't even appropriate in a given situation. Directly ignoring the subjective nature of the human physical condition in favor of gender stereotypes is sexist. The majority of my comment was a criticism of such sexism and the hypocrisy of my co-workers, thus confirming (at least in my own experience) that this is a problem. There's nothing much else that my comment was intended to convey. Certainly not saying "woman should be made to do everything equally to men, regardless of their biological limitations". That actually directly goes against the spirit of my comment, as I'm specifically saying that, as a man, my physical condition contradicts the stereotypical mold, which is a fact that should be taken into consideration. So why in the world would I say "ALL WOMAN" should do something when I'm specifically bringing up that situations should be viewed on an individualistic basis and not based on generalized perceptions?
I just don't see your criticism as being applicable.
