I'm not sure I get the distinction in your example, though - either statement seems discriminatory on religious grounds, on of Christians and the other Sikhs, and I'd expect both groups to see it that way.
In the States, the subtext of those two statements would be very different. In the first case, frankly, you'd have to unpack the statement, because refusing to get on a bus because the bus driver is Christian doesn't make any sense. Something like 80% of the population is Christian. So you might be making an equivalence between publicly demonstrating faith and needing God's help to drive, or you might be saying you were afraid that any Christian who would publicly declare their faith might take the opportunity to proselytize while one is trapped.
The second statement would be about fear of terrorism because of someone's religious faith.
Would the statement "We're proud that the history of fan-fiction has been predominantly non-female" be any more valuable as a litmus test?
No. The difference between "We're proud of our history as women" and "We're proud of our history as men" is that the default assumption about groups of people (in American Standard English, at least) is that they are groups of men or mostly men. This is less true now than it used to be, and hopefully one day it won't be true at all, but it is the way we live now.
So saying "We're proud ... women" corrects a false assumption most of one's audience are making. Saying "We're proud ... men" reinforces something most of one's audience already assumed. "Non-female" says 'No girls allowed!'
no subject
In the States, the subtext of those two statements would be very different. In the first case, frankly, you'd have to unpack the statement, because refusing to get on a bus because the bus driver is Christian doesn't make any sense. Something like 80% of the population is Christian. So you might be making an equivalence between publicly demonstrating faith and needing God's help to drive, or you might be saying you were afraid that any Christian who would publicly declare their faith might take the opportunity to proselytize while one is trapped.
The second statement would be about fear of terrorism because of someone's religious faith.
No. The difference between "We're proud of our history as women" and "We're proud of our history as men" is that the default assumption about groups of people (in American Standard English, at least) is that they are groups of men or mostly men. This is less true now than it used to be, and hopefully one day it won't be true at all, but it is the way we live now.
So saying "We're proud ... women" corrects a false assumption most of one's audience are making. Saying "We're proud ... men" reinforces something most of one's audience already assumed. "Non-female" says 'No girls allowed!'