There was no "sexist content." The whole point was that the (certified feminist) female professor accused the male professor of being insensitive to female needs. She said a sentence to me something like, "He has no idea what a woman's relationship is to food." I think her assertion was that women are more emotionally attached to food. She was furious at the male prof for thinking that that women were just little men, rather than that women have a different body chemistry and a different metabolism.
As I said in the original post, "Don't ask me to sort this out." Sometimes feminism means treat women as if they were men. Other times, you have to be aware of the differences. Her accusations against the male prof was that his attitude was, "If they want to act like men, then I'll treat them like men."
Both the female prof and I protested to the provost. The forced dieting quietly went away.
I was not privy to the exact nature of his later sexual misconduct. I understand it was something like this: The secretary was making copies and he cuddled up to her from behind saying something like "need me to show you how to work that thing?" He is and was a pig of a man and she immediately filed a grievance. As I said, the pig was a buddy of the provost (how else do you get to be dean only 3 years after your Ph.D?) who tried to smooth things out, but she remained adamant and left the school no choice but to "let" the pig resign.
I'm surprised that, given that the first incident was considered sexual harassment, the subsequent sexual harassment was considered irrelevant. In the first incident, the harassment is subtle, but my friend ferreted it out. To prove that she was right, I included the second incident.
In the original question, then, I'm suggesting that the OP's situation be looked at through the lens of harassment. Thin, athletic students only have to run for 50 minutes, while the fat kids have to run 3 hours. With the butchering of my post, NONE of this survived.
Only on THIS stack exchange is there this bigotted culture of bullying people who don't talk just like you do. Most negative comments are "you should have worded that like this..." Almost never is the suggested change an improvement. Rather, it is usually some dumbing down of the language. Some people are not that bright, but they think they are, and whenever they get confused, they, very wrongly, think that 90% of people would be equally confused. But they are not.
The bottom line is, people who can wrap their incivility in a right sort of cattiness are allowed to be as uncivil as they please. Whereas the neurologically different people, who can be quite bright, but don't have the social skills to word every sentence in the ultra PC way, or see the need to connect every single dot for some non-so-bright bigot who thinks he should run things.
That the moderators refuse to even discuss this with me should be proof enough that they are afraid to have their bigotry exposed.
But nothing will change the fact that they let their own kind be as abusive as they will, while then using the reactions to that abuse as an excuse to suppress and bully their target group. "You're not autistic, you're an asshole."
We will find our voice soon and the mods here will be exposed for their callous indifference to and often participation in the bullying of the spectrum. If they had the tiniest bit of tolerance or conscience, none of this nonsense would have happened.