Firstly there is no need to be defensive. As I said before these are not personal insults, I'm just trying to understand your perspective.

Now I did overlook that sentence about Japan, but there is no need to claim that I'm not capable of reading; your argument should be strong enough to stand on its own without trying to attack my character over an honest mistake.

As far as the substance of your post goes...

In your first paragraph here in your response and in the paragraph where you mention Japan you seem to be making the argument that we do not subject Japan's racial discrimination to moral scrutiny so we should therefore not subject Saudi Arabia 's gender discrimination to moral scrutiny. Is this a fair characterization of your argument?

If so I think that this argument as it stands is not valid, after all we could take this argument the other direction and say "We subject Saudi Arabia's gender discrimination to moral scrutiny so we should subject Japan's racial discrimination to moral scrutiny". This would be just as suitable unless we make an argument for moral relativism or to be specific, metaethical moral relativism being applicable to these issues and that this relativism then implies that we can not pass moral judgments on other cultures.

Now you have not made this argument, but rather originally differed to the perspective of anthropologists and have now back tracked that position to simply claim that its common sense that one should be willing to subject themselves to the standards of another society because a human being "should be able to accept that some cultures are different [than] others."; however saying "well it's just common sense" is not an argument and functions to portray me or anyone who disagrees with this claim as lacking common sense. Additionally I would claim that the statement is wrong in two regards, not only is this not common sense, but it is an indefensible position to take when we look at it in certain applications and therefore can not be a general principle.

For example if one is born or otherwise finds himself in a society which would allocate him to a life of slavery, would you not agree that he would be justified in passing a moral judgement on said society or should he just say "when in rome" and resign himself to slavery?

This post is gettting kinda long and I think ive made my core points so I wont go on in this post, but I would also like to add two points. First that I never made the claim that she, or anyone else, was or was not intellectually dishonest and second that when you call my writing nonsensical, back it up and point out where I am wrong, I am receptive to criticism.

This post was edited for clarity.