Indeed.

There are quite a few who have judiciously chosen to be out where it matters, locally.

Putting a face on the label, and living with that choice everyday is one thing. Choosing to broadcast what is abstract and meaningless without a RL person to strangers who will never meet you is just silly.

And..... all of this is really just an ad hominem.

What they really hate is the useful idea that can be transmitted over the internet, understood, and benefit a stranger. They fear the idea shorn of the irrelevant context of just how much product its advocate uses in his hair or what race she is.

This was another reason for pampheteers like Cato to write anonymously. So that the idea could be evaluated on its own.

When we are finally at the bargaining table, we will need public faces. But when no one is even asking for those faces......

Historical movement have shown us that one does not and cannot get that far without the anonymous actor. He knows it and is trying to disembowel his rivals before they get a fair hearing.

...............

Tangental aside.

A lot of the modern academic identity politics starts to break down when we cannot see where on the hierarchy of victimhood the speaking party belongs.

You can only decry mansplaining if you can verify that they speaker is a man.

This ad hominem is a full 180 degree turn from the notion that the academic's publications should be able to stand on their own.

Dante