Feminist logic fallacy: Apex and nadir fallacies

Feminists often use logic fallacies, so I thought it might be useful to address common fallacies one at a time, so we can all spot them easier and not be taken in by them.

The apex and nadir fallacies consist of attributing properties of those at the extremes of a population as if they are true of an entire population. It’s kind of similar to guilt by association.

A very small percent of men being influential politicians being twisted to claim all men have power of rule for example. .

Looking at the small percent of men who commit rape and claiming men are rapists is an example of the nadir fallacy.

Pointing to the small percent of men who are billionaires to claim men have wealth and power while ignoring all the men who are homeless is another example.

I find almost anytime feminists make a statement about “men” one of these fallacies is probably coming.

It seems to me a good response is often to simply correct the fallacy: “More men going into politics doesn’t equate to men overall having power of rule. The average man has no more power of rule than the average woman.”

What are some other examples of how you have seen feminists use the apex or nadir fallacies? How have you successfully handled these?

Feminist logic fallacy: Apex and nadir fallacies