Oh. Those are important examples and events in my own story; not surprisingly, they are heterosexually framed because I'm heterosexual. But four examples/events being heterosexually framed amidst the 7 labeled rationality lessons that are neutral to gender orientation does not make the post "only useful if you're a heterosexual male," I don't think.

So I'm still confused about what you seem to be reacting against. When I read a book and some small section of it doesn't apply to me, I don't write the author to complain that there was a section of what they wrote that didn't apply to me. I just skim past that part and note that it didn't apply to me, and then get back to the parts that do apply to me, if I'm finding the book useful at all - and if I'm not, I just don't read the book.

So, I'd love to be "showing some sign" of understanding the "some of your post doesn't apply to me" objection, but I'll need to have you help me understand it first, I'm afraid. :)

What exactly is the problem with the cited portion? Methinks you are reading things into Luke's comments that are not really there. This is sadly common when dealing with 'touchy' issues (sexuality, race, gender, etc.). Sometimes a person reveals their overly sensitive nature about things rather than true points in such instances.

Also, before one insists upon edits one ought to justify why such things are necessary. If you a really intent on upping a person's rationality you need to provide an argument that justifies your suggestion.