Well, no, you could write posts that aren't rants, that don't accuse others of dishonesty or stupidity because they disagree with you, and that don't engage in strawmanning and sarcastic exaggeration of the slightest disagreement.
So I went back and read the thread to figure out where you saw this and how you and I got derailed in our conversation and where these (to me) weird perceptions come from, and I'm not seeing anything explicit in the text. Therefore, I can only assume that its something about the assumptions we are making, and for that I have to do you the discourtesy of trying to figure out what assumptions you might have that might led you to go where you've gone on a logical basis. I'm going to make that guess, and if I'm wrong you can tell me, but my best guess is that you and I are holding in our heads entirely different models of the scenario.
Your model I think looks like this:
a) There is an established functional group with opinions of women that are worth approving.
b) There is a woman who is a member of this group.
c) A person shows up in the group who makes a jerk of himself through some sexist comments.
What should happen here? The logical conclusion here is, and I agree, that the woman in question should not refrain from showing her discomfort, and that the other members of the group should rally to protect their in group member. If the group is a convention, you throw the bum out. If the group is my gaming group where I'm the DM, I toss the guy who is being disruptive out on his ear the same way I would (I here joke) a guy that was boring dice without permission or engaging in other heinous behavior.
This is not the model I had in my head based on the original posters complaints about sexism in gaming. The model I had made the situation significantly more ambiguous and arguably significantly worse.
a) There is an existing functional social group. We can say nothing about the opinions and beliefs of its members or leadership.
b) There is a woman who is new to the particular social group (either new to gaming, or coming to the group from a different group).
c) A member of the existing social group behaves badly, and says and does things that strike the woman as being sexist (and probably strike me as being sexist). As generic example he says or does something equivalent to, "You aren't a real gamer; you are a girl.", but really it could be a lot of different things.
This situation is not as simple or as easy as the model you hold in your head. It might be great if we could move to a place where everything is like the model in your head, but we aren't there yet. In my model, the offensive person could be the DM. The group might be sexist and never considered their opinions, or the group might simply be insensitive and poorly socialized and is giving offense without meaning to really. The group may have a diversity of opinion. Or it may even be the case that there is no moral fault in the comments, and the woman has taken offense without cause and past judgment too quickly. And, putting myself in the shoes of the woman, I certainly would not be sure what was going on and would doubt my first impression.
There is a lot of reasons why we each have our respective model. For example, in my case I've both moved a lot and sought membership (as a complete or near stranger) in gaming groups, and have created new gaming groups featuring players from wildly diverse backgrounds - from gay men to evangelical Christians, from stereotypical gamer geeks and neckbeards to my wives college roommates - many of which had never gamed before.
Before I get too much further down this speculation and what I think it means, let me just stop and say, "Does your model of what is being discussed match what I think it does?"
And also, just because I am firmly disagree with you, does not mean that I am ranting, or any of the other ways you have chosen to characterize my posts. I have not called you stupid. I have not called you dishonest. Whatever you may think, I have not gone into a towering rage. I think you are, as some others have done, reading things in I haven't said. If you want to persist in responding to me as you have been and characterizing me as you have, there isn't much use in going further with this.
Lastly:
Now, can we take it as a given that nobody is trying to brainwash your daughters
No, we can't. Just in the past few weeks I've had to deal with:
a) Someone impressed upon them that what defined women/girls was that they liked pink, dolls, frilly things, and other traditional models of femininity. To my great pleasure, they rebelled against this characterization. But nonetheless, this lead to a misunderstanding between us that required ironing out, because they assumed this was my mental model of 'girl', and it required my assurance and reinforcement that they had every choice to like pink, dolls, frilly things, and so forth at their pleasure or to choose something else - rock climbing, legos, checkers, etc. - if they preferred it.
b) Someone impressed upon them that since they were girls, they couldn't read and enjoy stories about boys or from a male perspective. This one I'm still dealing with.
Now, it's possible the unknown shaper of their world views was some immature boy on a playground, but its also entirely possible that both perceptions came from an adult women expressing her views to them, and the second one in particular is one that could have come from a feminist and represents one of the things I really dislike in the modern '-ist' mindset - unconsidered side effects of advocating that everyone needs a hero that looks like them, tends to delegitimize having as heroes that don't look like you. I agree with others who think that modern feminism does no favors to either men or women, and often has a terrible and insulting opinion of both. Shallow advocacy of diversity ends up creating a world where you are expected to identify most with whoever looks most like you. It might not be the intention to do that, but its where it ends up at (for example the 'Dead White Men' problem). I can link you to essays by me ruing the lack of strong female leads, but I don't want my daughters to have the impression that there is 'boy's literature about and for boys' and 'girls literature about and for girls' and I certainly don't want them to think that they can't own and enjoy 'boy's literature'.
