We are condescending† somewhat deliberately. It's time to start shaking proponents of encrypted mail by the shoulders. We need analyses that spell out the concerns starkly and don't equivocate, because the issues themselves are stark, and a nuanced discussion (if one exists) cannot be effectively communicated to ordinary nonspecialist users.

In a world where encrypted email was popular and no reasonable alternatives existed, the equation would be different. But modern secure messengers have lapped PGP and S/MIME a practically uncountable number of times. I don't know what large power of ten the multiple is of messages protected by Signal Protocol compared to PGP, but I do know that it's large. The risk is not that people will naturally gravitate towards encrypted email (which is in practice a nightmare to use), but that well-meaning but poorly-informed technologists will try to talk them into doing that and adding encrypted email to the basket of tools ordinary people use. That can't be allowed to happen.

I also want the analysis to be somewhat bracing for technologists. I'm not making fun of PGP users when I say they're LARPing. I'm describing reality directly and meaningfully. I don't think proponents of encrypted email have really thought through why they're using PGP and S/MIME, and why they're not terrified of metadata collection and the occasional plaintext reply. Their risk profile is not the risk profile of the public at large; when you're LARPing, it doesn't matter if you get hit on the head with the sword.

† Not the term I would choose, but let's stipulate.