I also don’t see a problem with calling a pretty person a pretty person.

However, what Hemant and Brent did was suggest that Amber should be the atheist spokesperson based on her sex appeal and attractiveness and not based on her abilities, skills, experience, or knowledge. That’s objectification.

I suggest you read the wikipedia page on sexual objectification, it’s a good introduction.

One of the most common ways a feminist objection is dismissed is to accuse a person of of being “too sensitive” or “uptight.”

Is that what is happening to me here?

Depends on how you take it. The hyperbole you used is what prompted my response.

I just don’t see a problem with calling a pretty person a pretty person. Hemant and other weren’t giving her the construction worker treatment, in fact most of the post had to do with her beliefs. There are times when calling out sexism/racism are warrented, no doubt. However, making that claim with no basis can cause more harm than good, in that legitimate objections are ignored in the future. You can’t cry wolf every time you think the moon is full.

One of the most common ways a feminist objection is dismissed is to accuse a person of of being “too sensitive” or “uptight.”

That’s definitely true.

The same way that we are all familiar with common religious objections to atheism feminists are familiar with their own set of tired objections from detractors.

One of the most common ways a feminist objection is dismissed is to accuse a person of of being “too sensitive” or “uptight.”

Is that what is happening to me here?