There is a fundamental misunderstanding in logic by one of the posters. X is wrong because X is a circular argument. The fact that a great diversity of views exist does not mean that collection of views cannot be criticized. No one says it is wrong to criticize economics simply because there are thousands of models or that is wrong to criticize a political party because many in the political party have different views. Oftentimes a party, such as those in the modern US, is best understood in terms of the actions of its hardliners, which are tell-tale signs of critical differences in beliefs about what "one can get away with."
Furthermore, avoiding the True Scotsman fallacy requires that one who states that they belong to an ideology are accepted as part of that ideologies' movement. This includes misandrists who have attempted to murder men, misandrists who have upheld sexual assaulters of men despite disavowing sexual assault against women, and misandrist journals who have published literal analogs of Mein Kampf persecuting men. And of course, those who have imposed a literal separation of the sexes as in Korea.
The more moderate ideologues of the movement that I am alluding to often ally themselves with anti-colonialism, yet venture to other countries with the intent of imposing Western ideas and behaviors on local cultures. Presuming that ideologues can be fair in comparative literature is absurd. Ideologues always seek to present the past in terms of their own values, esteeming their interpretation over that of the local people located in that place and time. Ideologues pretend that their views are representative of a large group of people and in time those who believe them are swayed to their cause...not for ethics, not for love, not for justice--but for conformity.