[rosser]

I think we're agreeing past one another here. I'm merely encouraging looking at these different behaviors, which of course warrant different responses, from a broader perspective. That keeps us in mind of why we're engaging with them differently — to guide how we do that.

Maybe that's implicit in what you're saying, but I think it's likely to be more effective when considered consciously. It frames how we think about the interaction.

[Consultant32452]

I don't believe they warrant just different responses, but opposite responses. The opening line of the article makes it clear that this encounter is placed squarely under the label of sexist. It sucks to be a de-facto ambassador because you're in the minority, but any time a person starts a conversation by openly admitting their ignorance and making it clear they want to move forward in a positive way should be counted as a win. This type of interaction is an essential and positive step in our transition towards equality. Scoffing at him by responding, "just talk to me like a person" or having all of us label him a sexist is going to do nothing but shut him down and turn away a likely ally.

We need something else to call this guy other than sexist. Something at least slightly positive like likely ally.

[rosser]

I'm curious why you use "scoffing" when The Fine Article simply says "suggested" to describe the manner of her response. What, in her two-sentence account of this experience, suggests she was overtly dismissive of his efforts?

[Consultant32452]

Overt is strong, but it does seem dismissive. And the fact that it's listed in her experiences of having to deal with sexism makes it clear how the interaction was perceived.