I don't think the majority stop and think "How can I upset this person?" otherwise we'd see males cop it from males a lot more. I think it happens on a more instinctive level. e.g., "That person is a different gender or race to me so I must attack" and something emotional is a quick and easy thoughtless option.

Agreed, but I suspect trolls do to some extent agree/believe. If they actively were against it, they wouldn't say it (or at least I certainly hope so). What concerns me is the casualness with which trolls threaten rape/death/other violence behind the anonymity of the internet; the more frequently this behavior is seen, the more normalized it becomes.

I’m honestly not willing to make that distinction. I don’t care about intent, I care about what someone says.

I think the distinction of intent is important, though it certainly doesn't excuse the words. Someone who is saying something sexist out of ignorance can be reached out to, possibly brought over to the right side with reason and the right approach.

Someone who is saying it even though they know they're wrong, just to get a rise out of people, is sociopathic, and engaging with them would be a waste of time.

In other words, some people are bigots of circumstance - having been born, raised in a time and place, or otherwise exposed to certain views at certain moments. They can become allies, or at least brought to a position that isn't firmly bigoted. I think it's worthwhile to recognize the difference if only for the pragmatic purpose of knowing which arguments might be worthwhile and which are clear wastes of time.