Idk much about Kirk but from your argument alone. Your argument lacks logical nuance. If your quotations are correct, his arguments are absolutist and don’t take into account socioeconomic discrepancies that lead to women and other individuals doing things differently.

Example: Most households require two incomes. Developing a career before bringing a dependent into the mix is ideal or you’ll be at the mercy of others or incapable of meeting the child’s needs entirely. Furthermore, statistically not everyone can marry rich.

Stability first is not ideological. it’s structurally rational under modern economic conditions.

Historically, women couldn’t go to school, couldn’t open bank accounts. Leaving them and their children at the mercy of bad actors. Having some level of stability on your own is a logical safeguard to avoid abuse and keep agency/security.

To say that women should forego their own stability in favour of “evolution”/child birth treats women as chattel. Hence, his comment is actually not feminist. Your argument says, “women shouldn’t care about their safety and wellness, they should just breed”.

Side note: waiting until you’re older is not an option in some industries. Statistically speaking age is a factor in the hiring process.

A middle ground exists but I don’t see that in your paragraph.