I have been called to task on a few occasions by persons who, for some reason, can not get their minds around the idea that generalities in general are very useful conversational tools and that not all generalities are alike.
ERGO this entry:

What to tell you about generalities:

Generalities are not in and of themselves intrinsically wrong.

They may seem to some to be sweeping and all inclusive but, in point of fact generalities can never be all inclusive. They are “general” not specific. To get to the concepts of “sweeping and all inclusive," the offended hearer must impose that concept on them. Such an imposed meaning is, I think, unwarranted and serves a dialog poorly. It is a forced thing and it’s ugly. After all it tends to alarmist overreacting.


A generality is nothing more than that: a generality. All generalities are based on fact. The value of the generality is always going to be limited to the extent that the fact upon which it is based on is pervasive. When I use a generality, I will have already found the underlying facts very pervasive. However, that said, the fact upon which any given generality is based can never be all inclusive.

Many generalities are about humans and human nature. What facts about human nature can be all inclusive? I submit so few as to be statistically insignificant.

ERGO: The generality and its use in dialog. It is a very useful tool so long as people take for what it is and not make more of it than it merits.

Regarding the underlying fact giving rise to a generality:
The fact may not be flattering. It may suck being painful for the party experiencing the effect of the fact and it may not be true for any one individual, or the person standing next to him/her, or even the next one in line.

Hell, it may not be true for anyone in the hearer’s circle or anyone the hearer has ever known. However, that is an anecdotal circle and is statistically insignificant compared to the substantial populations sampled over the years by psychological researchers.

So I guess the best thing to say is that some people find generalities non-PC and others find them to be very useful.

What is one to do? Insist that people don't use 'em on the sole thesis that some hearers impose upon them meanings they never merited in the first place and then find them troubling? That’s not a good result. That is nothing short of PC fascism. I am disallowed a perfectly reasonable form of thought and expression for what, someone’s idea of how the world ought to be ordered?

Some forms of generalities give generalities in general a bad name. It’s an unfair rap. Just because some expressions are rooted in fear hatred and racism is no reason to paint all generalities with the same brush of “unacceptable.” That’d be as illogical as banning kitchen knives because some limited number of psychos use ‘em for evil ends.

Am I making sense?
Anyway If I used a generality and you (whoever you are) found it troubling, try to consider the foregoing. If you can’t then don’t converse with me ‘cause I’m unlikely to change on your account.