If you take one sentence and dissect it then it's easy to conclude it would have been better to phrase it in a different way assuming your goal is my goal.

But I was making a movement from a point made in the Google document that inspired visceral reactions and then leading FROM that point TO a more nuanced point which becomes apparent when the rest of my post is included:

> And I think that's really what was missing from his piece; why do these differences exist and isn't it possible they are constructed rather than innate? He lists a few reasons he is convinced they are not, including their consistency across cultures, but I remain unconvinced all of his list of differences can be explained in this way.

> Particularly leading. There are way too many studies that show the biases women have to deal with in that regard and assuming they have no impact on behavior is silly.

The context is relevant to understanding any sentence.

> natural to think stuff like this is completely trivial and the tactic of people who are "looking for excuses to be offended" or "looking to play the victim"

Yes, particularly when the rest of a three paragraph response clarifies any confusion that might have occurred.

> in this context, men are (largely) the ones who have trouble with assertiveness in women when it comes to leadership

Inaccurate if you're trying to say men respond more poorly to assertive women than other women. Accurate if you're saying in this context the demographics mean more men are present to respond. Seems relevant since you want to say

> men are worse employees because they can't handle a women being assertive

Which is definitely NOT what I am trying to communicate and is honestly offensive and not backed by data. Feel free to reference studies if you disagree and think men are particularly prone to respond to assertive women in the office more poorly than other women.

> But the difference is that my sentence emphasizes the fact that men are the problem, whereas your sentences emphasizes the fact that women are the victim of the problem.

I don't think men are the problem. I think society is the problem, and, possibly, biology to a degree. What degree? I haven't the foggiest.

> sexism exists

Sexism exist in everyone in every culture. Every woman is sexist. Every man is sexist. Agreed. The question is degrees and how aware people are of their biases so they can compensate for them.

> "intent is irrelevant"

We'll just have to agree to disagree. Intent is never irrelevant.

> I'm sure you didn't mean to do all the stuff I've pinned on you here, and maybe you still disagree that you have done it.

I did it. I'm happy to have done it. If I had agreed with your premise that men were the problem, I would still have disagreed with your changes to my paragraph since it lacks the movement of meeting people where they are and then moving to add nuance/clarification. Regardless, I don't agree with your premise.

> But many people will feel that you have done these things when they read your sentence, and you should at least treat their feelings as valid, try to understand why they feel that way, and consider some changes to how you phrase things.

Thanks for sharing. Your feelings are definitely valid in the sense you are feeling them. I've engaged pretty thoroughly with your comment. I simply disagree and, after considering changing how I phrase things in the future, have concluded that would be contrary to my goals.

Though I do appreciate you sharing your perspective. It's good to stand up for you believe in and promote your perspective on how people should act and behave. I'll continue to do the same.