Good points!

You may be thinking one or more of:
1.the quotes are inaccurate;
2. the quotes don’t mean what they plainly say;
3. the quotes are out of context;
4. my conclusion from the quotes and their plain meaning is mistaken;
5. the quotes are out of temporal order, and so are misleading;
6. I’ve made some other error.

Could you tell me which of these you think? Or just, give a number. Then I’ll try to guess why you picked that number.

No. She did not conflate the topic, and the subject of her discussion was the range of issues. You are wrong.

Is there some point you are trying to make by distorting the truth?

Watson complains that it

“creeps me out when men sexualize me in that manner”

after complaining that a man asked her to his room for coffee, while the two are otherwise alone on an elevator.

Stef McGraw objects:

“Watson is upset that this man is sexualizing her just after she gave a talk relating to feminism, but my question is this: Since when are respecting women as equals and showing sexual interest mutually exclusive? Is it not possible to view to take interest in a woman AND see her as an intelligent person?”

Watson uses her speech and a blogpost to conflate McGraw with nasty name-callers and rape-enablers and rape-victim-nonsupporters:

“I hear a lot of misogyny from skeptics and atheists, but when ancient anti-woman rhetoric like the above is repeated verbatim by a young woman online, it validates that misogyny in a way that goes above and beyond the validation those men get from one another. It also negatively affects the women who are nervous about being in similar situations. Some of them have been raped or otherwise sexually assaulted, and some just don’t want to be put in that position. And they read these posts and watch these videos and they think, “If something were to happen to me and these women won’t stand up for me, who will?””

This was not just a situation where Watson happened to discuss “a range of topics”. You are mistaken to suggest otherwise. It was Watson who shifted the discussion from “guys, don’t do that” to misogyny, rape, and sexual assault.

But sure, “it is offensive and counterproductive to accidentally or, worse, willfully confound and conflate these things. ” I’m with you on that.

The most horrific slippery slope fallacy I’ve ever heard was brought to us by the Christian unRight:

“We have to keep marriage between one man and one woman. If we let the gays marry, then people will want the right to marry children! And animals! They’ll want to marry dogs and cows and horses! Where will it stop?!?!”

Non-fallacy:

“Atheists in other regions of the world are beaten and executed for their lack of belief. While the surface conditions aren’t as extreme in the US, it is something to keep in mind when considering how the Christian unRight is trying to enforce their precepts through secular law. They’re passing statutes designed to punish atheists for a lack of belief – and to punish others for not believing in the ‘right’ god. We must stand in the way of these statutes – little steps toward a theocratic state could lead to atheists being jailed (or worse), just like they are in Iran.”

Even Richard Dawkins got that wrong and he is known for being smart and stuff.

Particularly ironic considering Richard Dawkins received no small amount of flak for having pictures of Nazis and Hitler in a presentation where he was discussing the Catholic Church. From what I remember (which, honestly, isn’t much) it was entirely on topic and not in anyway meant to signify he was calling Catholics Nazis but that’s the way it was taken.

I would have hoped someone who so frequently has what he says taken out of context and distorted would be cautious about doing that to other people but, meh, that’s life.