Sexism is not about carte blanche exclusion or inclusion, that's a derivative argument for certain scenarios. Sexism is prejudice and/or discrimination. Therefore there are social and cultural power dynamics at play. Blanket generalizations about inclusion are a slippery slope to "separate but equal" arguments IMO.
I make this point because I understand what Golden Tuna is trying to say, though I agree it may not have come off in the best light.
There's a big difference between academically/theoretically discussing social group dynamics and implementing policy for governance. In that sense, GT is technically correct.
However, that's taking the argument in a vaccuum. In the real world, we're looking at somewhere around a 12:1 ratio when it comes to gender participation in this sport, so in order to promote growth of that under-represented demographic, you create protective policy so that the minority is not snuffed out or made extinct.
There is a cultural component as well, while Men and Women competing on the tour may have fewer differences in terms of lifestyles or mindsets (considering they're all treating it as a job, for the most part) - in amateur events it's a different ballgame. Hobbyists compete for enjoyment and camaraderie, and oftentimes what constitutes those things is different for men and for women (also for older and younger, but let's focus on gender for the moment). If you have an extreme minority, and we do, we risk having a culture which becomes male dominant and unwelcoming to women. Thus, we create policies.
Again, none of this can really be extrapolated or taken out of this context, it would be inappropriate to copy/paste this discussion in another framework (i.e. Tour Events or larger competitive amateur events). We're discussing amateur events here at a B-tier or below level. The "grassroots" of the competitive scene.
Getting back to the OP - Matt Dollar is known to white knight. I don't particularly agree with his style of confrontation, I've been on the receiving end of it before, and I've found it to be unfair and more about calling people out than solving problems. I never saw the actual review, so I can't speak to its content, but I hope that this issue A) continues to be discussed and B) discussed in a productive manner.
