You are still the one that made the decision to implement a one-sided feature, though, so you considered it worth it.
> so I don't think you are so right to call me out on the supposed wrongdoing.
The "supposed wrongodoing" is highlighting only women in the home page, which you do. It was not about not having other filters.
> Religion & political ideology were 2 filters I wanted to implement prior to launch but I did not fearing controversy
I wonder why you thought that providing only the categories that appeal only to a minority of people [1] was going to not be controversial.
> the website's core concept is to find diverse users, as in minorities & underprivileged group
That is not stated anywhere. The home page says clearly: "Search for Twitter users who share your interests and come from different backgrounds".
> men don't happen to be one of those groups
That is exactly the ideological bias I was calling out.
Men make the majority of
* homeless people
* suicides
* people in prison (and get longer sentences for the same crimes)
* work related deaths (and the majority of the workforce in dangerous job)
* victims of violence and homicides
* deaths in war
The "pay gap" is a myth, since the difference in average earning is driven mainly by life choices and not by discrimination. The same is true for the lower percentage of women in tech.
The idea that men are a "privileged" category is just ideology, like anything that prescribes a common characteristic to a broad group. And the idea that "POC" think differently that "white people" is, frankly, racist.
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/large-majo...