It's a realistic statement. Or would you deny the obvious, that Wikipedia would be better off (less bureaucracy, more openness, less bickering, less toxicity) if the community was more gender-balanced and included less misogynist neckbeards?
It's not exactly news that organizations were women and more progressive types are in charge fare better: https://www.fastcompany.com/3033950/the-future-of-work/why-t...
Here's a calm discussion: http://suegardner.org/2011/02/19/nine-reasons-why-women-dont...
> “One hostile-to-women thing about Wikipedia I have noticed is that if a movie has a rape scene in it, the wiki article will often say it was a sex scene. When people try to change it, editors change it back and note that unlike “sex”, the word “rape” is not neutral, so it should be left out according to NPOV. Example (this one actually ended up changing “sex” to “make love”, which, oh wow.), example. There are probably more but it’s pretty depressing to seek them out. (It’s not true in cases where the movie is explicitly about rape, like the rape revenge genre that’s got its own page, but please don’t tell me that should assuage my concerns.) There are a few other things I’ve found frustrating about Wikipedia, but discovering that feature was really jarring and made me feel unwelcome there.” [19]
Misogynistic or clueless?
They don't argue the term rape when it's a matter of a criminal conviction so they can't argue neutrality here. If the debate of if it is rape or not is sufficiently divisive and exists out in the wider written world, then it perhaps warrants a new article section such as "Uncertainty of consent in sexual content" where normal Wikipedia standards such as citations and no original research should be applied. However this is a pretty unlikely outcome so the basic facts stand, rape is a neutral term for an event or behaviour, emotionally charged, but factually clear and neutral.