I think it was a very interesting article. It was actually brought to my attention via our GL electronic communications. I too want to see Freemasonry remain a Fraternity, however, I also acknowledge that Female Freemasonry is valid. I think it is a lot like a Church , just because I belong to a certain one, does not make all the others invalid - much less spend a lot of time putting them down which seems the default position for a lot of regular Freemasons.
I think my and following generations have a lot less respect for status and authority positions. I think understanding this and that the Sargent Major kind of ritualist damage lodges. We should encourage and support, not keep bashing bros for errors of a word or sentence. I think that part of the past needs to be dumped.
Me, I find meeting homophobia in lodge really hard to deal with. I think Freemasonry should be more tolerant than that and should not have its head in the sand, some love citing Oscar Wilde as an example of Masonic Diversity, but feel uncomfortable about gay men in Freemasonry (although, I must admit, I am not keen on introducing couples into a lodge - because that has its own dynamic, but I am not sure you can have one without being willing to have the other). I'm in lodges with gay brethren, but must admit to my knowledge never been in lodge with a gay couple....
I think Freemasonry as a predominately male space, and tyled lodges as a solely male domain has its strong merits, just as I think female birthing circles and gyms have theirs - but that also I would love to see more options for local Female Freemasonry, we only have mixed Lodges and no solely female lodges (and I am talking outside regular OES and Amaranth).
If Freemasonry is intellectual, surely we should be open to discussing these things... good to see my GL spark conversations around them.