The psychology of political correctness

Focusing on your male/female muscle example.Do you think being politically correct requires denial of the fact that men typically have higher muscle mass than women?I very much doubt you will find anyone here who would deny that fact and yet there are many people here (myself probably included) who you label as 'politically correct'. How do you reconcile that?I think you don't really understand political correctness and that you are railing against a straw man.The 'politically correct' don't deny that men have greater muscle mass than women, they just object to the notion that this is any reason at all to deem women as inferior to men generally.Anyway - As you almost certainly have lower muscle mass than I do I suggest you leave this discussion to the big boys and don't worry your pretty little head about such matters.

The last line of my post was intentionally 'politically incorrect'. It took the fact about differences in male and female physiology that you cited and made the gigantic leap from that to the notion that you, as a female, therefore have little of worth to add to this discussion because you are obviously inferior.Challenging and avoiding these sorts of leaps, stereotypes and assumptions being used to make value judgements is what political correctness means to me. It's nothing to do with denying facts. Your characterisation and your link are just cliched recitals of the pejorative use of the term which completely miss the entire point of why it is people might advocate 'political correctness'.You may well disagree with political correctness for all sorts of valid reasons. But making out its a Marxist plot is just silly.

Paranoid and persecuted, believing that hidden and insidious forces are weaving their sinister web at every turn.....I believe that 'rationally-challenged' is the PC term for that. You may not need PC to counter that sort of thinking. But it is that sort of value judgement laden thinking that PC is attempting to counter.

But I never claimed to be politically correct....I suspect you would accuse me of such. But I don't think I'd meet your own paranoid-laden definition of being politically correct based on it being some Marxist ploy to control you. I hold no such desire and am not part of such a ploy.I dispute the truth of what you call "the truth". If I am at all "politically correct" then my 'political correctness' is based upon the recognition that language is a powerful tool and the desire to see value laden assumptions, generalisations and stereotypes (of the sort I purposefully engaged in with regard to your male-physiology example) being challenged and taken to task. Nothing to do with a Marxist plot.You can continue down the path of a Marxist plot if you wish (I have no doubt you will do so based on your history) but it remains a nonsense.

But this "evidence" you speak of seems to consist of nothing more than referencing the 'accuracy in academia' website, which (despite the name) is like referencing Fox News as a reliable and objective source of information....It's a self declared highly partisan opinion mongerer. You might as well have declared that your position is evidenced because Bill O'Reilley says so.Just because someone writes their conspiracy theories down and posts them on a site they call 'accuracy in academia' doesn't make them a form of evidence.

Finding someone on the internet who shares your fantasies or opinions isn't 'evidence' of those things being true by any standard of evidence I have seen anyone seriously put forward.