Responding to Wired's ad hominem hatchet job

Reverse-sexism undermines and hurts the anti-sexist and female-friendly atmosphere that most of the tech community would like to foster. Gender discrimination and sexism need to be called out and stopped everywhere, but "crying wolf", without reason, weakens the very moral ground we purport to defend.

Without a lot of prior context, this seems like a clear-headed rebuttal to an otherwise pretty low ad hominem attack.

On a specific note, to characterise someone as sexist because they disagree with someone who happens to be a woman is in my opinion itself one of the most egregious examples of both sexism (for reasons I'll detail) and libel (for the damaging political and social impact of being branded with such a label).

First, throwing the term 'sexist' around carelessly undermines genuine claims of sexism. Second, it attempts to not only target an individual as sexist, but often the male gender as a whole as being part of a "misogynistic boys-club", in turn implying that masculine identity itself is inherently wrong. Third, it undermines genuine gender equality - if people are concerned about their criticisms being perceived as sexist they will refrain from open and honest critique which is the hallmark of colleagues and equals. Fourth, it assumes (paternalistically) a gender role for women as "poor persecuted girls" who need protecting from criticism and attack. Consequently, sexual inequality is perpetuated - after all, if this same criticism had been targeted at a male journalist would we expect to see responses such as "you're only picking on him because he's a man"?

There are plenty of genuine cases of sexism (against male, female, and other gender identities) which emerge out of the obsolescence of traditional social roles. Leveraging the political sensitivity of this important issue to attack an opponent is pretty low.

If the author's going to complain about hype in news coverage, perhaps he shouldn't be a leading contributor to one-sided news coverage like the Wall Street Journal's 'What They Know'.

Or is hype in news coverage only a problem when it's hype the author personally disagrees with?