Well, Mathew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, Paul, Timothy, James the Just, and the other apostles were not women or slaves.
But the rest of your argument helps explain why there is ten and not more non-Christian sources for Christ and Christianity within 150 years of Christ.
You obviously just completely misunderstood my entire post. The gospels -- you know those books that you claim bash Pilate (and Pilate's family would likely have ensured that no one would have risked writing that if it were not true) -- were not known throughout the Empire and were particularly not known in upper society. In the early days of Christianity, when this would have mattered, according to you, not all the gospels were even known in all Christian communities. Even into the 4th century there were gospels that we do not use today that were regularly being used in worship services, and there appear to be pockets where only one or two of the gospels (or a conglomeration of the surviving four melded into one account) were used (at that time). In the very early years each of the gospels was a local production. They were not widely know until the middle of the second century at least. Same for Paul's letters. Why does Justin not mention Paul once? Possibly because Marcion elevated Paul to the highest level and he wanted to counter Marcion, but possibly also because he didn't know the letters.
There is simply no way for Pilate or anyone in his family to have ever encountered the information, so that side of the argument is a waste of time. Instead of harping on trivialities (as far as this discussion goes) -- like who was or who was not a woman or slave -- you could have done the humble bit and admitted -- OK, we can let that side of the argument go because it doesn't hold water.
There are zero non-Christian sources for Jesus or his life (aside from his execution). There are two Roman and one Jewish source (the Jewish source obviously having been tampered with (if you really want to discuss the Testimonium Flavium again we can go at it)) for the existence of Christianity (not Christ or anything about him aside from the fact that he was executed) between 100 and 130 CE IIRC. And, yes, the reason that there are so few sources mentioning Christianity is precisely because it was so far under the radar that it was considered merely a nuisance to those governing when something bad happened (there are more references to Heavan's Gate -- a much less important group historically -- in this thread alone than Christianity in Roman writings in its early years). Tacitus only mentions Christianity as Nero's excuse for burning Rome. Pliny, the Younger just wants instructions from Trajan about what to do with those wackos. Lucian, a Greek, also mentions briefly the Christians (in order to mock them) but no attestations about Jesus. The Talmud mentions the death of a Yeshua, but since this was a common name and we know of other Yeshuas who were executed around the time, no one can claim that this is a definite reference to the Jesus that you might want it to be. This is silly evidence. We all know that Christianity dates to this time -- the existence of a few tidbits that demonstrate that Christianity dates to this time helps how?
The Romans considered Christianity a group of loonies and a potentially dangerous cult for two (what they considered) good reasons.
That some of the earlier followers were not women or slaves matters how, exactly? I didn't say that it was a religion exclusively of women and slaves in the early years, but a religion largely of women and slaves -- as it spread into the Roman world. In its very earliest years it was a Jewish sect. We have good evidence of one of Christianity's earliest beliefs reflected in the writings of the Church fathers -- a 'heresy' known as the Ebionites -- that competed with Paul's interpretation of Jesus and which is reflected in the New Testament itself (see Acts and Galatians).
