I think we all have to find a better way to distinguish the things that are being said from the message that you want to convey.
As long as we keep reacting to the thing being said immediately giving for granted that the other person actually wanted to say something else (even when that's true) we fall in that trap and communication is impossible.
It would be much more productive to just defuse all those superficial shibboleth traps and just agree on the obvious superficial facts and encourage the interlocutor to actually get to the bottom of their argument and spell it out what they actually want to say. "Do you want to say that women are playing the victim too much because men are dying more on the workplace? Do you want women to get back in the kitchen as they used to be? Then, just say it". If they're not saying that, who cares if they are "dog whistling" those ideas. The dog whistle works only if we all allow it to work by feeding the trolls.
The argument that reality is misogynistic and thus information (IE. accurate observations of that reality) should not be uttered and those who sin in that way should be unemployed is misandry.
Misinformation was one thing, they are complaining about regular old information now.
the question is whether someone approves of that reality or criticizes it. i think it is reasonable to expect that certain realities (like racism) need to be criticized and not approved, and if you can't make that distinction clear then i can see that could be a problem.
The argument that reality is misogynistic and thus information should not be uttered
this comment is stating that we can't talk about reality because reality is misogynistic (or, i'd like to add: racist) and so when we talk about that, certain people will complain.
consider a tech conference that only has male speakers. are they all male because no women applied, or did the organizers only pick male speakers because of their preference?
now i come along and say, it's ok that there are only male speakers.
am i saying that because i want to acknowledge the reality that there are so few women in the tech scene that sometimes there just aren't any female speakers? or am i saying it because i prefer it that way?
some people will be fine with my statement, and others will consider it misogynistic.
now suppose i make a joke about that. am i laughing at the ineffectiveness of the tech scene to attract women, or am i laughing at women not being fit for tech?
some people will see one interpretation, and some the other.
to resolve the problem, and avoid a misunderstanding, it is helpful, or even necessary to make that distinction and make clear in which way my statement or my joke are to be interpreted.
> misogynistic information
stuff like "the vast majority of workplace deaths are men" and "women in fact aren't the primary victims of war"?