This seems like a good place to address the role of identity in argumentation. In academia, we have either single-blind or double-blind review. It isn't actually all that effective because research is so frequently circulated around at conferences and such before it is ever submitted for publication, but journals use double-blind review. Referees aren't supposed to know who the authors are, and authors aren't supposed to know who the reviewers are. Arguments are supposed to stand or fall based on their own strength, not who makes them. Argument by identity is nothing more than a variation of argument by authority, and argument by authority is bullshit. Therefore, argument by identity is bullshit.
Is Brett Kavanaugh a rapist? How do we evaluate his fitness for the U.S. Supreme Court? One's ability to answer these questions should have nothing to do with gender. In fact, one's fitness to answer these questions in practice has little to do with one's gender either, but I'll get to that.
How should one assess the claims about Kavanaugh? First, understand that most claims are true, then consider the evidence and counter-evidence. Yes, the first part matters since this isn't a trial. The point is to determine whether, all things considered (and uncertainty is a consideration), Kavanaugh is the best person to place on the U.S. Supreme Court. Given at least the plausibility of the claims. Being male doesn't mean inappropriately rejecting rape accusations. Clearly. Hi! I'm male!
You know who else is male? And this is where we get into the "in practice" part, most of the Democrats in the Senate. In practice, this isn't about gender or identity. This is about party. The Democrats believe Ford. They mostly opposed Kavanaugh anyway, but they believe Ford. Republicans are split between those who believe Kavanaugh for whatever reason, and those who support him without regard to whether or not Ford is telling the truth. Party, not gender.
When this comes down to a vote, consider a few Republicans. First, Jeff Flake. Flake makes noises about being an honorable type, uncomfortable with the Trumpian politics of the Trump era, but in the end, he caves. During the tax debate, he said he'd never vote for a tax bill that raised the deficit because conservatives hate deficits!!! Yeah, that was always obviously bullshit. I lost the faith with Corker, and in the end, he caved too, but Flake gave it up to Trump for nothing. Why? Because that's what people like Flake do. He'll vote to confirm because that's what people like Flake do. Ignore his protestations.
So, what about Collins and Murkowski? As I have been saying, Murkowski is probably a harder vote for Kavanaugh than Collins for a few reasons. First, she's smarter. By far. Second, she didn't trap herself with some bullshit back-and-forth about how Roe was a litmus test that she really had no intention of using. Murkowski is a conservative-leaning moderate who makes tradeoffs as she sees fit. Agree or disagree, she bargains, makes her choices, and is hard to pressure. Why? She lost a primary to tea-bagger, Joe Miller, in 2010, and then won as a write-in in the general election anyway. Collins is just a twit, and at this point, she is occasionally even sounding Alex Jones-ish to defend Kavanaugh. I really don't get why people think she is comparable to Murkowski here. Listen to what she says, and she is far more supportive of Kavanaugh than Murkowski. She isn't at Grassley levels of support, but she isn't at Murkowski levels of skepticism.
And that difference is my point here. There is one GOP Senator who is truly a Kavanaugh skeptic: Lisa Murkowski. Yes, she is a woman. Is her skepticism because she is a woman? Well, she's also a moderate. But, if it were as simple as that, she'd take Collins with her. They are both moderate GOP women, right? Collins, though, is spreading Alex Jones conspiracy theories in order to defend her Kavanaugh-support. Why? What's the difference?
There are two differences. First, intelligence. Collins is, as I keep saying, stupid. I don't know how to put this gently, but she's not smart. Lisa Murkowski is. This matters. Idiots are easier dupe. Then, there's the fact that Lisa Murkowski is among the harder people in the Senate Republican delegation to pressure, having won an election as a write-in candidate against Joe Miller despite losing her primary to the tea-bagging nutjob back in 2010. Shouldn't retiring legislators, like Jeff Flake, have more courage? Yes. Yes, they should. They don't. Is that a gender effect or an ideology effect? Multiple variables.
So, consider the other Senate Republican women: Shelley Moore Capito, Joni Ernst, Deb Fischer, Cindy Hyde-Smith. Wow, long list there, right? Um, I wonder if that says something? Oh, never mind about that. Have you heard anything from these women? Does anyone seriously think any of them will vote against Kavanaugh? No? So what does that say? Oh, and Heidi Heitkamp, the Democrat from North Dakota might vote yes. Why? North Dakota. Republican state.
It's party, not gender. The Democrats will vote no, the Republicans will vote yes. Murkowski might defect. Flake will make noises about his honor, and then besmirch his own honor, like always, by voting yes. If anyone has seen any signs of intelligence in Susan Collins, please point me to it. Otherwise, I think her lack of intelligence should be declared the 8th wonder of the post-modern world. Every word out of her unsteady mouth is supportive of Kavanaugh, so I don't get why people think she is a potential no-vote, except for the "moderate" label. And that gender thing. I'm looking at her words and her party, though, because party is predicting a lot here.
And so, we go into today's meaningless, theatrical bullshit spectacle looking for... what? Kavanaugh will play innocent and deny everything because rapists never actually say, "yeah, I did it, you got me." Rach will play the attack dog on a rape victim on behalf of a bunch of cowardly, old misogynists because that's how she's earning today's blood money. The GOP thinks they will look better if their misogynistic attacks come from a woman. In a circumstance that is about party, not gender, within the Senate anyway.