I'm not telling you how to write, I'm telling you how to think. Presumptuous, I know, which is why I supplied justifications. None of which you responded to.

Once the concepts are straight, I'm pretty sure you can handle the writing; you're plenty good enough of a writer for that.

I didn't say that one can't rely on context! Language is full of context. My point is that one shouldn't embed bigoted attitudes in the context.

You gave such silly examples that I can't even tell if you understood the point. "Violent criminals are overwhelmingly men," already has the caveat "overwhelmingly"! You don't need to add "some". It's only when you drop the caveat and flip the statement around that you really get into trouble: "Men are violent criminals."

Let's look at an actual example which you provided in the form of the link to the Vox article. I'm not claiming you endorsed the content, but you should be aware of the writing since you linked us to it.

"What is a man? Might as well start here. A man is an adult male of the species homo sapiens. [...] Some additional notes about men: * A man is someone who pays his female employees less. [...]"

This is the kind of writing that displays and encourages prejudicial thinking. It isn't about having a productive conversation, or about saving five characters; it's just bigoted.

You're covering for attitudes like that, and you shouldn't.