I was going to flag Is it considered normal to publish job offers inviting candidates to apply based on their gender and / or race in academia? for moderators' attention, or attempt an edit myself, but then I wasn't sure if I would be acting correctly.
I will try not to get bogged down in the specific topic of that question, which seems to be contentious (and now it's hit the non-academia SE sites and Twitter, natch). Following observations by Dan Romik in his answer and various commenters on chat threads, I think it is objectively true that the question has the following structure:
Title: Why is it normal/acceptable for A to happen?
Preamable to question: Some description of circumstances A.
Question(s): Why is B acceptable?
Here it seems to be assumed that A will either lead to B, or has been set up in order to lead to B, or that A and B are the same.
My own question: instead of arguing against the apparent motivation for the question, should users or mods instead change the question to one that is more neutral? Or is this too intrusive against the wishes of the original author?
Sorry if this is too nebulous: I am trying to find a point of principle or practice that it might be useful to sort out, rather than get overly focused on the rights and wrongs of a particular question.