[pi18n]

Point one and the latter part of three make sense to me. Point two should be, "it's an ad hominem attack and intellectually bankrupt." This applies if and only if the target of the term is not actually prejudiced.

I don't think males as a whole are being attacked when one gets called sexist, but I also don't know what you mean by "position in society". For the majority of men in the US that position is that they're more likely to be murdered, arrested, serve relatively longer sentences, receive less money for health care, pay more for insurance, get called to selective service, and die younger. You seem to be presenting it as if they should be embarrassed at how high above everyone else they are.

[yummyfajitas]

Point two should be, "it's an ad hominem attack and intellectually bankrupt." This applies if and only if the target of the term is not actually prejudiced.

Even if they are prejudiced, it is still an ad hominem. A biased person (i.e., nearly all of us) could still make a correct argument, as could an unbiased bayesian with a strong prior.

There are very narrow categories when ad hominem is justified - specifically, if one is attempting to appeal to authority, then attacking the authority is justified. In all other cases that I can think of, it's a logical fallacy.

[pi18n]

Forgive me, I meant if the criticism is in response to actual prejudice.

[king_jester]

> For the majority of men in the US that position is that they're more likely to be murdered, arrested, serve relatively longer sentences, receive less money for health care, pay more for insurance, get called to selective service, and die younger.

All of those things you listed are hugely intersectional with race, sexual orientation, and class. In terms of sexism, men will rarely face institutional barriers based solely on their gender and are unlikely to be have their lives affected by being called sexist.