Speaking as a woman of LessWrong, when I was 16, I was insufficiently sane and insufficiently mentally developed.

So was I. I don't think we disagree that when speaking to children, adolescents, and other people who aren't equipped to hear truth-statements without taking unreasonable offense, we should suitably modify our statements.

But the original question was whether we (here at Less Wrong) — who are more or less sane, intelligent, and mentally developed — ought to take offense, or even whether we should consider the statements to be "offensive" in the sense of saying that any offense taken to them is justified. In other words, which of these scenarios is closer to what should be going on:

Father: You need to be able to cook and keep a clean house, or what man would want to marry you?
LW Observer, looking on from the sidelines: What an offensive statement! I am offended.

or

Father: You need to be able to cook and keep a clean house, or what man would want to marry you?
LW Observer, looking on from the sidelines: That statement is probably poorly suited to its intended audience.

The thing about offense is that it's an emotional reaction, and one that prompts us to certain sorts of behaviors toward the person or group who caused the offense. We should be careful to be offended by those things that we actually think should prompt us to the resulting behaviors. I happen to think that there are very few kinds of actions or statements that deserve the sort of response that we see to "offensive" things these days, certainly much fewer than actually get such a response. This suggests that we should get offended at fewer things. Emotions have consequences.

Edit: How the heck do I put in a line break...? Is there an equivalent to <br /> here?