"She" is "a representative of the Women In Mathematics (WIM) chapter in his department"
“As a matter of principle,” she wrote, “I support people discussing controversial matters openly … At the same time, I think it’s good to be aware of the effects.” While she was obviously able to debate the merits of our paper, she worried that other, presumably less sophisticated, readers “will just see someone wielding the authority of mathematics to support a very controversial, and potentially sexist, set of ideas…”
The words "very controversial" seem to mean "inherently wrong" in this passage.
So, without putting words in anyone's mouth, let's say I am on position A on a "controversial" topic, and you are on position B.
So If I present evidence, mathematical or not, supporting my position A, your argument will be that my evidence must be wrong, since B is obviously correct.
I got that a lot from Wife2.
And she would stamp her feet.
Truly it is said, it is nearly impossible to reason a person out of a position they did not reason themselves into.
Oh, yeah, I just thought of it: "Open discussion." Riiiiiight. You wouldn't get
me to walk into that lion's den. Or lioness's.
Terry, Husband2