So far, the apologetic response seems to be an accidental confession:
“The feminists, liberals, therapists, and critics are making arguments people find more persuasive than ours.”
That does not mean their arguments are automatically correct. Important caveat. I am not conceding the truth of every progressive critique.
But the language in these apologetic responses is telling.
Instead of offering a better methodology or a stronger interpretation of 15,000 respondents, the counter seems to be:
“They were influenced by Marxists, liberals, therapists, podcasts, and grievance culture.”
Which is basically:
“The other side made better arguments, and we no likey the data.”
It would be hilarious if it weren’t so tragic.
So far, I still have not seen a substantive competing model.