Is it safe to say that one of the challenges with debates around any 'minority group' is that nuance is often not welcome in debates (especially on the internet?).

Let me give you an example: on average, there is no question that women have a disadvantage in the US workplace. My company would never tolerate it, and I personally (white male) would never tolerate it. However, if we look at statistics, the issue gets incredibly complex.

Women make about 70% of Men in the US when you divide total income by total working people of that gender. However, when looking at equivalent people in equivalent roles, women make closer to 97% of what men make. When you adjust for performance at role, it falls back to 92% (women at the same role who perform better might still make less). When adjusting for hours worked, women make more than men because men tend to work more hours in similar roles. So: complex.

Men often pursue higher paying professions. For example, looking at the 1%, you'll find in law that women often choose to work in general counsel instead of at a big firm because of the lifestyle benefits. In Finance, it's virtually impossible to be in investment banking and raise a family (for men or women, really). Go to the other end of the spectrum, and women work fewer labor jobs, which are those jobs most likely to be unionized (hence: higher pay).

And then there's more complexity: Women have a much higher college graduation rate, and in urban areas, in their 20s, are already out-earning men on average. Does this mean that we've made all the progress we need to, and must simply wait for everything to settle out over the next few generations? I don't believe so, but someone with their head in a calculator might say so.

Net: equality is a complex nut to crack; and people who have a nuanced viewpoint often don't feel comfortable simplifying everything to sound bites, even though that's how you typically sway opinion.