Wall-of-text? Dude. We're posting in a philosophy subreddit. If you're a grad student, you probably read at least a few articles per day on top of whatever you do for classes, and an article will be ~20 pages (2500-5000 words) of much denser shit. The average person reads 200-300 words/minute, and you probably read more. It's not a big deal.

'it's other people's problem if they're insulted by me saying things I know can be insulting'

Well, no, we didn't use the verbiage 'insulting' until now.

You used "socially marked" and I used "controversial."

But, yes, if you are in a discipline that analyzes foundational beliefs, a lot of the beliefs you examine will elicit some kind of negative emotion. I'm not even sure how you can do philosophy otherwise unless you're incredibly selective about your subject matter. At the very least, selectively approaching issues encourages people to only pursue the subject matter that is innocuous, and the innocuous stuff is going to be low-impact because controversial stuff is controversial for a reason -- it's high-impact stuff a lot of people disagree about.

You overvalue your own opinion, and very much undervalue that of other people.

I don't think I have. How do you think so?

There is also a large pedagogic literature which you are apparently utterly ignorant of, about how portrayals of groups by way of stereotyped qualities alienates people, and (it goes without saying) retards their education.

I am familiar with this literature. Interestingly, it's often one of the few pieces of social psychology that philosophers are familiar with. Using stereotype threat as a basis to radically change teaching style has its own issues, but that's a side-discussion.

More importantly the example I gave about promiscuity did not pertain to stereotypes; it pertained to likely real-world scenarios. Perhaps those scenarios might be thought of as stereotypical by you, but that doesn't mean they will induce some kind of mind-crushing stereotype threat. Further, beliefs about promiscuity are extremely likely to influence decisions, having a well-reasoned stance concerning it is more important than whatever effects might be created from someone's unconscious feelings toward it.

I mean, evolution is controversial too. I'm sure there's some stereotype threat action going on in biology. This is no way means we should euphemize evolution under the principle that people might feel badly about it.

your only response has been 'it's other people's problem if they're insulted by me saying things I know can be insulting'.

You didn't seem to take me seriously the first time, so I'll reiterate: drop this issue, and drop it now.

I understood you the first time. I've replied to show you how pointless it is to issue commands over a textual medium. In real life, you might be able to fight me, I guess, but you can at most ban me and delete my post here, both of which I've said I'm okay with.

If you want to be the only voice in a conversation, just delete the posts of the person you're responding to. Expecting them to go along with it is ridiculous, though.