For starters, the defense was appreciated. Marky and I do not like knocking heads, but we have differences that make this inevitable at times.
Because Clinton has a vagina, while Trump admitted to probably the worst sin outside of pedophilia - finding young women attractive!
I think the main reason Clinton gets a free pass from the centrists has less to do with her gender and more to do with the fact that she is a Democrat. Plain and simple. War-mongering/profiteering, polarizing identity politics, getting in bed with foreign dictators (including misogynistic dictators like the Saudi Arabian sheikdom), and the passing of draconian legislation are only bad things if the Republicans do it. If the Democrats do it, however, it makes them simply "imperfect." To them, it's all about the brand -- not the policies, principles, or ethics. Clinton may be every bit as much of a fascist as Trump, but she's our fascist; that's the way the Dems look at it. And when they lose an election, it's everyone's fault but their own. They blame the Russians, they blame the Greens (i.e., real progressives in much larger numbers than the Dems), they blame their own actual (albeit marginalized) progressive base; but never the choices made by the leadership or the favored candidates themselves.
As for the SJWs, they likely do give Clinton a free pass for her gender, but they could have supported Jill Stein too. The reason they favor Clinton over Stein is twofold:
1) Clinton is not simply a woman, but a powerful woman, which plays into their power fantasies (much as Trump plays into the opposite camp's power fantasies); to them, power is more important than any principles or policies.
And fascism is only a problem for them if it happens to be of a sort they disapprove of. They seem to want a strange combination of freedom and draconian legislation, with the former provided selectively and the latter promoted on the mistaken belief that it's possible for fascist legislation to be controlled so it only goes so far. In order to deal with the numerous historical examples of how this is never the way it works, they have adopted a policy of ignoring history wherever convenient.
And, 2) She is a smooth talker rather than a boisterous and buffoonish loudmouth like Trump, despite being every bit as arrogant, pompous, and pro-corporate elitist. And the type of identity politics she pushes (unlike the type pushed by Trump and a portion of his followers) is emotionally appealing to them. There is nothing in the Dem rulebook against open heterophobic misandry, but only the type of bigotry displayed by Trump's side of the idenitarian fence. As long as Clinton maintains her feminine plumbing and gives lip service to liberal social values, the policies and legislation she supports that hurts minorities (e.g., the 1994 crime bill; the incessant bombing of countries that takes the lives of numerous innocent people of color, women, and children) is either overlooked, or the blame is placed on Republicans for "making" her do it. It can never be her own fault, because their narrative insists that as long as she calls herself a Democrat, she can never be as bad as any Republican. This is all fueled by emotion, so it doesn't have to make any kind of logical sense or be supported by empirical evidence.
It's called ethical principles and conscience, not Asperbergers'.
That was an interesting remark on Marky's part. For one thing, Asperger's is considered a disability and many SJWs would accuse him of being "abelist" for using it pejoratively like that, since many of them accept disabled people as a legit minority group. To them, only MAPs and youths do not have their legitimacy as minorities recognized or respected. Oh, and possibly Russians and Palestinians these days.
"Progressives" supported making our lives hell back in the day, as did social liberals.
Social liberals and what we today would call progressives were quite open to discussing both MAP and youth liberation back during the late 1960s and 1970s. This was before they allowed themselves to be emasculated and stripped of most of their principles by the conservatives once Thatcher and Reagan -- and Oprah -- took power. Had they chosen to resist this takeover and the great genuinely progressive momentum of the '70s continued unhindered into the present, Marky and Ethan would likely be two very different people today. And both the Clinton and the Trumps may never have become remotely relevant. And we all may be leading very different lives right now.
And now that the momentum has started to go forward again with the rebirth of both the youth liberation movement and a genuinely progressive movement, the centrists are trying their hardest to resist the comeback. If only they had fought that hard to resist the conservatives taking over as the Carter administration came to a close.