Are you? MedPR wasn't validating the offense..... he was invalidating it. If his statement is invalid it is because it ignores things about the direction of the assumptions made. It has nothing to do with there being more women docs than male nurses. The point I was making before you opted to treat it like a direct call out rather than a rhetorical question on the subject was that misconceptions do happen and are often the result of the summation of a person's experience. Statistics need not apply. In comparing female doctors to male nurses (two groups of people who go against older established stereotypes) MedPR got this, or at least got lucky. Calling it out on the basis that there are fewer male nurses directly implies that male nurses do not have a right to be offended for being mistaken as doctors or that, at least in part, a major contributing factor to the "right" or "appropriateness" of female doctors being offended by being mistaken for nurses has to do with their share of the job market pie. Both statements are false. The point is, people need to be careful when rejecting comparisons and metaphors because the rejection of such statements can imply just as much as the statement itself. Quite frankly, there is not another logical rationale for the rejection of his comparison on those terms. I don't personally agree with MedPR, but I do so on different grounds. His statement ignores positive and negative stereotypes. I would personally rather be confused for something of higher prestige/impact than something of lower, even if both things are technically wrong or prejudiced. Even with that said, I only partially disagree. I think the people complaining that it is unfair to be pigeonholed are often just as guilty of doing so to others, including those they feel victimized by. People need to just understand that people make generalizations based on people's experiences such that people can make sense of the world. Common denominator? people, not male, female, black, white, green. To worry about the numerical validity of a generalization completely misses the point and inappropriately lends validity to emotional responses
for the sake of argument why does that impact his statement that patients should be given a break for mistakes associated with their experiences? 
