Again, over again, one more time, yet again, here on HN I was not addressing any particular woman. Instead, there was full anonymity on both sides. So, there was nothing personal involved. I used no names and, really, know no names of the women, and the women don't know my name. So, what I wrote was not really personal. I never claimed or suggested that what I wrote would be appropriate to say directly from a particular man to a particular woman in a real office, employment context; guessing or concluding that I was so suggesting was an unjustified "extrapolation" and, likely, some hypersensitivity to some of the attitudes of political correctness. So, clearly one should take what I wrote as what a man would tell his wife, sister, or daughter.
In our society, in a case of such anonymity, such use of honey is common. E.g., Trump says in public that he "cherishes women". Well, maybe he does. But that is not the same as him walking up to a particular woman, one of thousands at his rallies, and saying "I cherish you". Everyone knows this difference.
On my parents, my mother was born and raised in Ohio, and my father, in Upstate NY. He met my mother in Ohio, and they got married in Ohio. My father went to the Old South because that is where his employer wanted him. My parents had no sympathy at all for the racial norms of the Old South; my ancestors are from England and Germany, but I hated those norms of the Old South and got the hack out of there ASAP. I'm in NYS and don't want to go back to the US South. My mother's approach was clear: Since she did work, she hired a maid for some of the house work. The maid was Black. Mom was sure to make the maid's US Social Security contributions. That was extraordinary.
I think that's the point of disagreement. Is it ever appropriate to address an adult "woman in distress" as "honey" if you are an older male and not in a relationship with her? Similar to "boy", whether correct or not, many (most?) Americans, particularly younger, currently feel that it is never appropriate.
If your parents and grandparents were also from the Deep South, there is some likelihood that they would call a young black man "boy" without necessarily intending offense. The argument that eventually won out is that regardless of intent, such language is belittling and inappropriate. I think the change was for the better, while also accepting that often no harm was intended.
I was in elementary school in North Carolina in the late 70's, and there was still an "unreconstructed" older generation who proudly clung to an "outdated racial terminology" -- some in spite, and some on the theory that they meant nothing wrong by it. Perhaps at the time they were right, perhaps they weren't, but clearly current society would argue against such usage.
I'm asserting that regardless of your intent, your use of "honey" (and defense thereof, particularly the "protective" aspect) is parallel to the way that "boy" (presumably, depending on your age and culture) strikes you. A web search for "honey sexist" will give you a summary of the current consensus.
The attacks were personal, against my person, and not against the content of my post.
To the extent that your choice of phrasing is part of the content, I think it was mostly about the content. I'd guess that 'ksenzee' (who from other posts I think is female) was genuinely asking if your post was parody. You are probably right that the implication was "if you think that's socially acceptable you would be a bad person", but I think it really was in the context of "but surely you can't think that".
(I personally agree with much of your rant about the inconsistencies of "equality", but this may be because I'm probably midway in age between you and much of the rest of the HN audience. I will note though that your wife's opinion on whether 'gender equality' would have been a "big step down" is an important factor to consider.)