I.......dude, you do understand your still arguing moral philosophy yes? I mean, I was a dick about it before, but restating your moral philosophy and the why's of it aren't gonna change the fact that it can brought into question itself. That all your points rely on statistics analysis, and as someone taking graduate courses related to this stuff, I'm telling you that I could make much of statistics say anything I want.
All of your arguments rely on a few key facts: There are common moral grounds that cross the relative boundary between two peoples in the points you present That people accept your statistical analysis and experts and resuources vs others against them That yours and other sharing your views critical analysis and perspective of the subject matter and data is shared by others
I'll grant you that you're not an ass and you clearly have attempted to create an informed opinion and well structuted argument, but it doesn't make it less easy to tear down if one feels so inclined.
On another matter, you being up all this stuff focusing on female problems but fail to mention male ones with the same passion or degree even in the inviromenrs you bring up. That alone is an avenue of attack.
Besides allllllllll of that, you have the unique issue of trying to convince a group to come to the discussion table that has in the past attempted to but been burned multiple times by your "side" or at the least groups that said similar things. This makes it much harder to willingly attempt discussion as you must first prove that your worthy of said discussion and must inspire confidence that said discussion will be good for all parties and you won't single one side out.
I myself have offered attempts to reach middle grounds and compromises for your "side" in these forums. I was routinely ignored by one group and warned by the other that you'd only take a mile for every inch and eventually keep pushing and pushing and pushing and accepting no less than total victory in any discussion or action taken.
Also, also, there's the fact that your views are distinctly in the minority here. So that's an uphill battle.
PS. I still thinking its highly wrong to push your views onto a medium just for the sake of making it one more tool in the overarching scheme of things that we call life such that your views gain greater traction in society. That's how one of my favorite book series got ruined; a few of them actually. Authors were forced to make radical changes or lower quality in order to meet certain criteria of publishers such that political overtures and messages range through out;m. Never mind that the changes made no sense, ruined the quality, and basically tore to shreds all the original artistic talent that had gone into the original writing in books one to convey specific things. Never mind that a medium means more to its audience than the political or moral views that may be in it. Hell, its like if we had a dictator and so all books that had a protagonist that led rebellion against tyrants or showed the merits of democracy were burned or changed.