I too like nuanced discussion on HN and I generally don't shy from political questions. That said, HN is the watering hole for people with multiple political a

I too like nuanced discussion on HN and I generally don't shy from political questions. That said, HN is the watering hole for people with multiple political approaches on a fairly wide spectrum. I think debate between these people is best facilitated by prompts and articles which raise multiple nuanced questions. And I think we do have useful debates at this point. What isn't useful is something like an overt manifesto for one or another "side" on this political spectrum. And HN generally avoids such things. But there's a kind of article, like this one imo, that is more or less a manifesto - an article that stake out a position and only give apparent gestures at balance. These have the same low-quality potential as manifestos. In important questions, it's unfortunate have a lot of uninformed posts even when they aren't flame bait. In the case of the present article, I don't think readers of the article will come away with any greater understanding of "Gender Theory" and what gives rise to it and so it's not really a generator of good quality discussion even when people are not shouting at each. Edit: Another thing I should add is that in the case of article that are effectively manifestos, upvotes and downvotes are going to gravitate to being just around the popularity of various positions and that too lowers the quality of discussion.