I think you're saying that correcting a bias isn't itself applying bias.

I think the poster to which you're responding is saying there wasn't any visible evidence of bias in the original behaviour.

From one point of view, you're correcting a bias (in this case, one you suspect might exist), and you believe that isn't a bias.

From another point of view, you're introducing a new bias (that definitely exists) to something that was previously (presumably) agnostic and neutral, by saying that a correction should only be applied when the question-asker meets certain criteria.

Both points of view are legitimate.

PERSONALLY I'd rather we not bring the "have you thought about how this might be discriminatory" bits into the converation unless there's at least some vague reason to think that it was, rather than presuming it's always discrimination when the genders and/or sexes and/or races line up a certain way. But that's because I think it's more important to debate the ideas in their pure form than to correct every instance of discrimination, and that's an arbitrary value judgement I made.