And then suppose you encounter a woman who tells you that because of the insults she has received from guys in the skeptic community, she has decided that the skeptic movement is fundamentally sexist.
Receiving insults from men that identify as skeptics does not mean that the skeptic movement is fundamentally sexist.
Telling her she just committed a fallacy doesn't seem so wrong to me.
That doesn't mean telling her so is the right choice.
If you don't address her experience, you're missing the point.
You can "believe" all kinds of things without feeling them and living them out.
In her case, skeptics may believe they are not fundamentally sexist. But her observation would then be that this belief is only skin deep. It should trouble the skeptic that an observer finds their community sexist, and trigger a crisis in the belief.
Some of his examples are condescending, which is the basis of what he's trying to get at, others are only condescending if you wilfully choose to take them that way. The problem isn't in pointing out the fallacy, it's with the tone of the commentary. The simple fact that you name a fallacy while exposing it does not mean you're a lazy debater.