I guess the opposing argument would be that the existing policy got there politically, and the only way to oppose it (even with data and sources) will make peop

I guess the opposing argument would be that the existing policy got there politically, and the only way to oppose it (even with data and sources) will make people uncomfortable. Writing the same manifesto in support of the existing policy would not have rocked the boat. I agree a manifesto likely isn't the best idea, but you also can't just say informally, "maybe there are biological differences that affect representation at a high level." When you just say that, people assume it's a dog whistle. You have to support it, and you have to make a case for what you're proposing. You also have to state in black and white that sexism still exists, and that you're suggesting there could be other causes, too. By that point, it becomes a manifesto. To me it ultimately comes down to the context of where it was shared internally and how, but it's tough to find details there.