You've written an admirable and surprisingly fast answer to the question (which was not an easy question). We'll get to the quote above later.

I judged the effort and clarity to have passed my minimum quality standard to be satisfied, but just out of curiosity I asked the three LLMs also, and they all gave a good to excellent score. So, it's not just me who thinks it's well-written and that when reasoning is given, it is quite clear: to the extent one can know these days, it's canonically good.

I especially like the description of stereotype threat--super clear and with caveats. That's fantastic! Anyone who reads this who doesn't already understand it will be well-served.

And the "not all men are protectors" point is very important. It's true! They're not! From my perspective, I'd say: even though we generally, out of politeness, have less hesitancy over-ascribing positive qualities than negative ones, there are multiple reasons why overgeneralizing is usually a bad idea here too. Alternatively, from a "it's fine!" perspective, then maybe "men pay their female employees less" is sometimes fine too. So either way you look at it, it's a good point about not being hypocritical.

Also, though I didn't ask for it, the "how do we do it" section is a nice addition, and the diversity-of-approaches-reaches-more-people point is something that I really wish people would consider more often.

However.

I do want to point out that you wouldn't engage on a different comment thread with topics like this because you said I was asking 101-level questions in a 400 class.

But look at the quote above! I asked you the supposed 101-level question, and your answer was "it's complicated and I don't know". You also mused that, "Rex crammed a lot of questions into his prompt (I imagine to get his full money’s worth)", but that's not it at all.

You didn't quote my explanation: "I've already got a fragmentary understanding of bits of the answer; it's tying the whole picture together that isn't working." and "LLMs [...] don't really grapple with the key synthesis of psychological safety vs "punching up" vs productive discussion with all relevant parties."

Of course I have to put in all the pieces that I want synthesized if I am looking for a synthesis!

I consider a thoughtful treatment of the synthesis of those ideas with each other to be the absolute ground level understanding necessary to have a reasoned opinion on the matter of things like "not all men". It's like asking for someone to at least have passed their driving test before they drive for Uber.

The reason is that if you're going to advocate for saying things with an ultimate goal of changing how people act, you'd darned well better be thinking about how people act depending on what you say! And feminists especially tend to be aware of psychological safety and stereotype threat--they're very important factors, though not the only well-validated factors that we know impact persuasion--so it's eminently reasonable to expect an understanding of at least how those are relevant to claims that antagonizing stereotypes should be avoided.

But I accept the "I don't know" and "it's complicated" and "not my job to think about it until you prove it matters" as a 101-for-this-perspective-on-feminism answer. I explicitly said I didn't want a defense, just what you thought was an honest read, so I can't very well complain if the honest read is basically empty. And I don't infer that there's no 400 level or whatever synthesis, or that there is; I just defer judgment in the absence of information either way.

Anyway, I'm happy to support NNAF. It's a good cause; it's crazy that it has to be a cause in the U.S., and it's a whole other story worth telling about why that is, but not now.

If you want me to explain why the 101-level version you give here is completely unconvincing (by doing the synthesis consistent with the feminist perspective where "some men" is the right thing to say--that synthesis is easy because everything is straightforwardly self-consistent!), and there'd better be a really good 400-level synthesis or we should, as I charged before, consider stereotyping as a form of bigotry, I'm happy to do it here.

But if you'd prefer, I'll just say: thank you! This is well-written and I'm glad to have it around. If I want to write an alternate perspective, I can post my own story when I feel like it.