> the sentence talking about underrepresentation...

fair enough

> are enough evidence that an assertion of "where are they" needs some backing beyond "i don't think they exist"

"where are they" doesn't necessarily assert "i don't think they exist" on a worldwide scale. Very often statements such as these assume a particular location (e.g. the west, the us, etc) and other context (what is the norm / the usual case). But in any case, my post was mainly about how you assumed the intention of parent, and attacked their post; so I think it less important if they poorly supported their argument, and more important that their argument was so poorly supported that it was offensive, and can be attacked as 'ignorant'. I don't want to beat you down for factual in-correctness, but rather for unreasonable manner!

> So I answered the question.

If all you did was that, a constructive argument could be had, that could go in many directions; but this ignores tone entirely. Saying the issue is about 'existence' not 'volume' and is therefore a change in topic is wrong. you assert that the topic is about absolute, worldwide existence of these grants, an extreme straw-man. 'volume' is another common interpretation of 'existence' that seems far more relevant to the context.

> You want to require extra evidence from me, because you don't like me answering the question that was asked about

I guess it was a matter of time before I got the same treatment as op, and had my intentions analysed in bad-faith.

> provide tons of conjecture (but no real counter evidence) that I'm not making a good argument

The issue then is burden of proof. If a claim is made, and the burden on you, then the argument isn't good-until-proven-bad, it needs to meet certain standards first.
My 'conjecture' is that you know nothing about parent to make assertions about him. For example, whether you realise it or not, you made an assertion that "[I] don't like me answering the question that was asked about". How do you know this? what do you know of my intentions?

Are you saying I have to prove that you know nothing about me? now that's an amusing evidentiary requirement.

> Yet you are blindly accepting the claim that they are underrepresented

Please quote me on that

> which is less than "flimsy" evidence

Why does 'flimsy' have quotes? I didn't say this.

> its amusing, hypocritical and honestly, kind of stupid.

really? Can you never take the high-road?

> since you have chosen to ignore the core of the argument and instead attack my presentation of them

Let me clarify that - this isn't a case of judging a book by its cover, or an argument by its style; communicating in a rude, abrasive manner is something deserving of criticism in itself. Show me were I've implied that "You argument is invalid because of how it's is presented". I have implied "Your argument is invalid, and it is presented in an unacceptable manner" - These are two issues, but the second relates to the first in that a discussion of the validity of your arguments should require civil discourse.

> I will assume you are using the fallacy fallacy and ad hominem to try and discredit my point

You discredit yourself by presenting your argument in this manner, if this is the case. Are you saying you can be as rude as you like, and if anyone takes exception to it, they're trying to derail your argument?! Then avoid this, and deprive them of this tactic by being civil.

> Usually (note, because you seem to have problems with this sort of thing - the word usually is distinctly different than always dictionaries may be able to help if you need some explanation) this means you have no actual argument towards the point.

sigh, more nasty snark - and why then do you think it's me that has a 'problem'? I would be happier discussing this nicely, you insist on not doing so. Which point are you referring to in this case?

> you can approach politeness however you want.

You seem to approach it from a direction that certainly differs from the dictionary definition.
This has no relevance to the topic of sexism, but it is relevant to the discussion of it.