Wrecksomething

Above,

We rate things based on the evidence available at the time the statement is made.

Versus here,

potential future data seem stacked against Sanders' claim

Uhh.

You're raising a very important caveat, one I agree with strongly, but you're also imagining future data to arrive at a "false" ruling when moments ago you told us you stick with currently available evidence.

Is something is true now but you think it's unlikely to remain true, your ruling should be "true" and you should explain why it's unlikely to remain true.

Do you believe American government is becoming less responsive to voters? In The Myth of Male Power you note legislators are mostly men, but compared them to chauffers. They're not really in charge because voters can fire them. That was 1993. Today faith in Congress is at record lows, researchers find evidence that voters have little or no influence, and campaign spending has exploded.

If so, then they're not chauffers. Should we worry more about mostly male legislators? "In the first quarter of 2013, states have proposed 694 provisions related to a woman’s body"

Non union members can't be forced to pay dues. That's illegal in all states under the Taft-Hartley act and isn't the subject of right-to-work laws.

However, unions often have expenses related to representing non-union members. This creates a free rider problem: no reason to join and pay if you can get free representation. Unions have a legal duty to represent non-members so they can't simply refuse.

The sensible way to avoid the problem is to charge non-members, but only for the cost associated with representing non-members and not any other union activity. This is distinct from union dues.

Right-to-work laws prohibit unions from doing that, thus legally mandating the free rider problem and restricting your ability to enter into a contract even if it's the agreement wanted by all involved.

and later specifically denied listing AVfM as a hate site.

That never happened. You're thinking of this clarification which said the MRM is not a hate group. AVfM is still a hate site.

SPLC has run a few articles about manosphere hate site activity, but if you want some examples of why I suspect AVfM is included...

AVFM:

• Hosted a terrorist manifesto which called for the firebombing of courthouses and police stations on its "Activism" page for over a year. ^[1]

• Urges acquittal in all rape trials, regardless of evidence. ^[2]

• Argues that women do not have moral agency. ^{[3] [4]}

• Laments that because of laws against spousal rape, "sex is no longer a loving duty," and so "Aside from children, there’s no benefit left to having a wife." ^[5]

• Believes that 92 out of 102 rape allegations are false accusations. ^[6]

• Urges publishing women's contact info online ("doxxing"). Multiple staffers shadowbanned from reddit with surviving staffers calling /r/MensRights "Stupid and cowardly" for not embracing doxxing. ^[7] AVfM maintains its own doxxing registry (register-her) to doxx people for as little as a joke on twitter. ^[8] Naturally they sometimes catch the wrong witch. ^[9]

Then there's your explanation, here:

But if the best someone can do is site one article out of tens of thousands where one author (probably a female) used this kind of language, Warren is answering a disingenuous question, and I hope he knows it.

Why does that gender matter?

The Southern Poverty Law Center includes AVfM on a list of woman-hating websites.

I see you (an AVfM employee) deleted your question about that in favor of name calling.