The thing that makes x-ism x-ism is not truthiness (or the lack thereof), but intent and omission and what it implies. The thing that is explicitly being said is always accompanied by a lot more that is not being said and this makes all the difference.
Let's stipulate that group A has statistically more X than group B. This is the truth, measurably.
If we state this fact on public television, but omit, overlook or belittle the (also stipulated) fact, that this is due to unfair advantage Y (which then accelerates development that furthers the unfair advantage of group A) that's X-ism.
The devil is in the cherry picking and context. The outcome might not even be intended. Or it might be. The crux is: Saying "that's not what I meant" is just as easy as saying "that's what you meant" (or "that's sexist") and neither is a sign of sincerity.
Let's stipulate that group A has statistically more X than group B. This is the truth, measurably.
If we state this fact on public television, but omit, overlook or belittle the (also stipulated) fact, that this is due to unfair advantage Y (which then accelerates development that furthers the unfair advantage of group A) that's X-ism.
The devil is in the cherry picking and context. The outcome might not even be intended. Or it might be. The crux is: Saying "that's not what I meant" is just as easy as saying "that's what you meant" (or "that's sexist") and neither is a sign of sincerity.