For my part it has nothing to do with anonymity.
I agree that most here would likely apologise and move on including myself. Its obviously a sensible choice to avoid conflict, and make clear your intent is not antagonistic. I disagree with assuming offence on the behalf of others because they are women. Has T May commented?
If not she has my utmost respect for acting in her capacity as P.M, not as woman. That is her role in this instance. I would also respect her decision to challenge it on her own behalf, and could still see a P.Ms strength in that.
There would have been no offence given or taken if someone hadn't assumed it, and made it public. Most women I speak to see it as sexist to assume offence on their behalf and make allowances for language based on nuance they feel has no place in our language. So who is right? Thats for women to work out as people. Not us to decide for women.
In the meantime, if we stop giving recognition to concepts that don't belong with the word, we can still respect the wishes of individuals, as individuals.
You think Corbyn should have acknowledged it and moved on. Its still his decision and without knowing the conditions from his reality perspective
with absolute certainty, we can't be sure what he should have done either.
Because some people see bifurcation of the sexes as recognition of a diversity. Based on sex. Nothing else.
Who says different means unequal? Or that we should see it as unequal?