The second the left moved away from the economic arguments and embraced an 'identity is paramount to all other forms of engagement' doctrine was the second it splintered. Progress for women was happening (albeit slowly and far slower than I would've liked) but it was happening as society gradually slid ever more to the left. Yes, there were vocal feminists but the difference between Germaine Greer and Valerie Solanas is important. A lot of progress of feminism has come off the back of socialism and the economic arguments after the Second World War.

Despite the incremental moving forward of slow and steady arguments from people like RBG, we're now at a place where things are moving backwards. You should stop to consider why. If men's systemic hatred of women was so strong - why are we moving backwards apace now? Could it be a result of people like Tara Reade and Amber Heard. Could it be a failure to appreciate that feminism is about equality and not misandry? Coudl it be the backlash that didn't happen against moderates paving the way to progress has suddenly reared its head as a result of a more vocal and slightly less thought through form of feminism? Time will tell.

The whole point of human experience and opinion is all equal is why we go back to the science. My opinion of the authors original point was that she hadn't got enough credible science to back up her claims - your rebuttal to which was she doesn't have to prove squat. So yes, you can decry the lack of evidence based practice all you like - but the hypocrisy is strong. 'Men perceive there to be more women than there are" is an assertion, it wasn't science. It was an observation made by a single woman outside of the experiment itself. Asking for an example of this being proven rather than presuming it is proven based on that woman's comments isn't outside of the realms of normal consideration.

Here is a scientific paper in case you're interested in how sex recongition works in faces. It does show there are some slight variations in how males and females perceive sex. The differences aren't huge, but they are there. They aren't.... 'men ignore women because someone from an institute mentioned it once' - this is a controlled and rigorous experiment that's worthy of discussion. The differences are there but I'd argue that they aren't to the magnitude the original author suggests. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-54074-5

In the meantime, I should point out that 'I won't waste any more of my time' is code for a supercillious exit from good faith debate. Either show up and bring the debate, or slink off and don't.... but don't pretend you've got the moral high ground as you exit - it doesn't fool anyone.