People tend to get upset when they are excluded from a group. Do you think that the right way of going against it is by further exclusion? I do not think that this is the case.
> "Black Lives Matter" highlights an actual problem that needsd to be addressed
So what is that problem? Does it have to do with exclusion? If so, why do not you promote "All Lives Matter", to make sure no one is excluded, then?
> "All Lives Matter" is just a bland retort to try to get the spotlight away from "Black Lives Matter"
And I could say that "Black Lives Matter" is just a bland way of trying to get the spotlight away from the fact that everyone deserves equal treatment, and that we should not discriminate people, or exclude them for their skin color, which is what it is actually doing. It is doing exactly the same thing it is fighting against.
Fighting fire with fire is not a good way of doing it. You do not even have to create such groups or whatever to address these issues. In fact, I cannot think of a reason of why shouting "Black Lives Matter" is a solution at all.
> In the case of women, their sex is not irrelevant, because the demographics of people in science overwhelmingly show a skew in sex and gender.
There are men who have been underrepresented, and there are women who have been underrepresented. Why focus on women only? What is the point here exactly?
> Highlighting how women were relegated to footnotes much more than men were is an interesting bit of information
So were men. How is it interesting?
Back to the matter at hand, what could be the reason that some men and women get shoved into the footnotes only? Does it have to do with the merit of quality of their contributions? Why do we assume that it has to do with their sex to begin with? Maybe it has to do with the contributions themselves, or something completely different.