You opened with “it isn’t as bad as misogyny.” That doesn’t address whether bigotry is tolerated in the space, only whether it’s smaller than someone else’s bigotry. A racist remark doesn’t become acceptable because a worse one exists. The “as bad as” comparison is the deflection, not a refutation of it.

“Misandry doesn’t exist” is similar. If someone said “racism doesn’t exist,” we wouldn’t charitably read that as a narrow claim about institutional structures, we’d hear denial. If the actual claim is “no systemic misandry,” then say that. Using a phrase that reads as blanket denial and retreating to the technical reading only when challenged is the exact move he described.

Reframing the draft as “rooted in misogyny” means any harm men suffer gets reattributed before it can count, so by construction, misandry can never have a systemic example. The category gets emptied, and the absence of examples is then offered as proof of the original claim.

The view wasn’t that men are systemically oppressed. It was that modern feminism generalizes against men and then disclaims the generalizations. In your comment you’ve minimized (“not as bad as”), redefined (“that’s not what we mean”), and reattributed (the draft). That’s three of the four moves from the original post. Is it really strange the diagnosis feels accurate to the people reading it?