But you see, that isn't about the gender, it's about the act involved.

"She was at that seedy bar downtown and got stabbed. She really needs to stop hanging out with those people." -- Common sense.

"He was at that seedy bar downtown and got raped. He really needs to stop hanging out with those people." -- Victim blaming.

Of course, that's following YOUR assertion. I would describe both cases as victim blaming, but with rape being a worse case of victim blaming. Why? Because stabbing isn't an act of subjugation, it's an act of violence. Rape is an act of subjugation (which isn't to say that rape can't be violent - just that the intent with rape isn't generally violence).

On the topic in general, I would say that it's being misrepresented in the same way - confusing "not quite as bad" with "acceptable". Saying that all white people are criminals is wrong, just as saying all black people are criminals is wrong. But saying it about black people is worse, not because it's any more false, but because it perpetuates existing stereotypes and reinforces attitudes that harm the disadvantaged.

Besides which, most uses of the "reverse" cases are intended either as a way to demonstrate the hypocrisy of those who would use the "typical" cases, or as humour playing off the "typical" case being reversed. And the exceptions are usually said by the kinds of people who believe in "an eye for an eye" - it's being said as a kind of retribution.

On the other hand, most of the "typical" cases are being stated by people who are simply prejudiced/racist/etc. There are exceptions for that, too. And sometimes, it's considered acceptable to make those statements.

And incidentally, "I don't prefer skinny people" would be considered just as unacceptable as "I don't enjoy fat people" because they're both body-shaming. Saying that you personally find thinner or fatter people more attractive is fine, but saying that they are inherently less or more attractive would be unacceptable.

Also note that the last example, of "conservatives are stupid", would be considered unacceptable by the same people who say "liberals are stupid" (and usually throw around phrases like "libtard" - which really just demonstrates the stupidity of the person using the phrase, given that it's not even a clever portmanteau, and unoriginal to boot - note that this is about the specific people using these phrases, not conservatives in general).

EDIT:

The point Binary Solo is making is that people may use a knife to defend themselves - it is possible that the stabbing was done in self-defense. The stabbing could potentially be an unfortunate end result of someone doing something justifiable - defending themselves.

Can you think of any situation in which rape is justifiable?

Because in the world of SJW's and tumblerinas, we must respect everyone equally as long as you're not:

Intolerant

Bigoted

An Asshole

1) are you talking about the 75 cents per dollar thing?

2) No one likes people who talk too much. period. 

3) Healthier? I'm quite sure having your rib cage visible or have layers of fat isn't healthy at all. Then again, I don't know how humans think. I avoid social media and magazines a lot, so perhaps my ignorance may show due to not being more interested in the social world.

4) I understand some people have more advantages over the other. It's irritating when people use double standards. 

Here, look at this study: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

it's shown that blacks(even though they're only 20% of the population) commited 50% of all crime. Is that an issue? Of course it is. However, I will not ignore the fact that whites commited 40%, which is also a high number. Some people will choose to ignore anything a minority does and nitpick all mistakes from others. Whether if it'd be against men, whites, CIS, heterosexuals, Christians, and so on, I think the left has corrupted our process of judgement with a "agree or be an enemy" viewpoint.

That's a valid point. Because there is so much negativity surrounding certain groups of people, contributing to that negativity seems to hurt more. Ideally however, I think it is best not to speak ill of anyone. Just because someone is not usually spoken ill of, I don't think it would be right to start speaking ill of them, which will surely not lead to anything good.

There are laws on the books in some states  that can send you to jail for spitting on the sidewalk but i ve never heard anyone going ot jail for it

Women benifit from affirmative action-  ie in many colleges and companies a woman with equal or lesser scores/experience/resume etc will gain admittance to a school or be given a job/promotion ahead of the very men "in power" you mention

re body type-  can t argue w you there

one person s opportunitty comes at the expense of anothers-    over time the cream rises to the top naturally-   there is nothing wrong with letting it happen naturally-   but people are afrad of what it will look like- 

I disagree, all of the examples in the OP are bad.

Lemme think. Making critical comments and jokes about a currently and or historically oppressed demographic, by a member of the demographic who used to be, or still is, the oppressor is more likely to be objectively offensive and inappropropriate and assholish than being critical or making jokes about the oppressor demographic. Seems pretty legit to me. I don't really understand why people don't get this. But still making broad negative generalisations about the worth of any demographic group is, generally, entirely inappropriate and is pretty much never absolutely fine. Which is why even if some of the exmaples in the OP are less badly wrong than others, they are all still wrong.

Humour does not exist in a vaccuum and it can be used to further belittle and denigrate an already disadvantaged group, or person.

Well half of those are bad examples anyway... but...

In 28 states you can be fired for being gay without recourse. There are people actively fighting to keep it this way. Gay people can not share benefits with their partners, adopt, and so on.

Women earn significantly less than men and are often perceived as less capable despite being otherwise qualified. Studies have shown biases towards labeling women as "chatty", "talkative", or "gossipy" even in cases where they have not been.

A skinny bodytype is definitely preferred. People underweight on BMI are perceived as healthier and more attractive than those within the normal range. Magazines photoshop already thing people to make them abnormally thin, then promise advice on how to reach these unattainable goals.

If you didn't realize when you were typing it, the common denominator in all of these examples is power. The top example is an example of people in power talking about the less powerful group. Quite often these groups have the power and influence to impose, or at least attempt to impose, their will on the less powerful group. So that's the difference here.

As a gay person I want my homophobic employers to be able to fire me. I want to expose him/her for his/her homophobia. I don't want to work and benefit a homophobe. We live in a time when being gay isn't a big deal for the majority of people, I am not worried about the overwhelming minority who aren't alright with it.

Women earn less than men, yes, but they don't have a lower wage. Earnings =/= wage. It is illegal to pay women a lower wage than men. Why do women earn less? They are not pressured to be bread-winners, they are not as money-centric as men, they have other priorities in life, they don't have motivation to put in 80 weeks and rather would spend their money, etc, etc. That is alright. Women and Men have different wants and needs. Women also have affirmative action to their benefit. I am sure it outweights the negatives of being considered "chatty", "talkative", or "gossipy." 

"Perceived as healthier", aren't they? Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the United States, and a leading cause in other first-world countries. Sorry, this is an anti-scientific position to insinuate that the healthiness of overweight people on average when comparerd to skinny people is subjective. 

The "power" sociological position is ridiculous and holds very little force behind it for everyday people. The only people who see things that way are those who study a subfield of liberal arts in college. Racism, sexism, etc exist regardless of the structural power of a class of people historically. Most people see things on the individual level these days, and that is a good thing. Let's not regress here. 

It seems you just skimmed over my post as briefly as possible to pluck some quotes out of context so that you could get back on your soapbox.  

Was talking about gender in that specific example.

Edit: I should point out that your example isn't very good. When choosing something as personal as a significant other, any and everything becomes a factor. When a business is choosing an employee, race is not a legitimate factor in making that decision.

And of course it's our responsibility as individuals to work to make our lives better. But you can work through your disadvantages and speak up about injustices you see in the world around you.