As usual, this sort of over-educated "hurr-durr" falls neatly on its face. FIrst, it's going after 'gender studies,' which is a non-science field, akin to literary criticism, where the game is about teasing meaning out of inputs on a post-facto basis -- a project that can be done earnestly and sincerely, or cynically and insincerely, without invalidating it entirely; and where there is no burden of proof or requirement that models have predictive value. Plenty of widely acknowledged as insightful and good literary criticism is at least as incoherent as anything these jerks came up with.

Second, the 'incoherent' idea they came up with -- that (leaving aside real penises and their functions) there's such a thing as a 'conceptual penis' that's a complex social construct, and that male-dominated culture/society/economy has tendencies that reflect this construct and its attendant narratives -- is obviously, completely, 100%, plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face true. And it even already has a name, which is "phallocentricity."

So ... hurr-durr, guys. Try again.

What I took away from this is that "experts" should not necessarily be taken at their word.

I've been a little disturbed at some personal interactions recently (over the last 4 years) in which a long, well thought out explanation, is dismissed because an expert said something different. What struck me in these cases was that in each case the original person was an expert in the field (though certainly not as famous); and that their well thought out argument was not deconstructed or refuted, just dismissed as not agreeing with doctrine.

The subject matter of this particular hoax is not what I find relevant. That hoaxes such as this are possible is something that people should be more aware of. That the expert you believe without question, may not be an expert.

More to the point, an expert you believe without question is also known as a "priest".