>from what I hear and understand of the matter, this guy is factually in error, probably sexist, and almost certainly undermining his cause. That's my take too

>from what I hear and understand of the matter, this guy is factually in error, probably sexist, and almost certainly undermining his cause. That's my take too, having read the doc. Reminds me of The_Donald -- sometimes correctly identifies an issue, but misses the point entirely on so many levels and does more harm than good to whatever the author's goal was. >you don't un-people people And that's exactly how the doc started from the get-go. It decried anyone who dared disagree with it as shunning communication. That's really not the case -- people discussed it, and disagreed with it. It reminds me of those religious freedom laws, that guarantee people's freedom to discriminate to protect their own beliefs. The more layers you follow down, the more of a contradiction the laws become.