I have met women in tech who have been privacy conscious and paranoid about state control. Or even a healthy stream of non-tech women worried that it will be used to attack their sex and to discriminate. I don't think the author is correct in his belief that there are not a considerable amount of women worried about privacy. And to make such a board claim, and in light of my experience, would indicate either hubris or sexism.
If anything, he frames that he is concerned about his daughter as a father. The viewpoint of patriarchy.
As a counter point, the larger point that the author was making resonated with what I have seen.
As in - women in tech who value privacy and rule of law, and are also advocates for child safety and (better versions of) age verification.
In addition, for obvious reasons, you see more (more being the key word) women showing up for issues like NCII.
I'm not fully sure of what is the total composition of opinions, and will not dismiss your experience. Indeed the hyper privacy all high costs group might be a small percentage. But I know several that use tails openly, despite being vehemently protective of women, while knowing less men that use tails. Certainly not "mythical" in my book. Futhermore the ignoring of viewpoints of non-tech women, the majority of women, expressing constant worry of state discrimination via information collection even though it's regularly hitting the news is bad. Tech is not the only party to this, indeed that's one of the reasons for this scenario as he correctly pointed out. His claim was overbroad so as to improve his argument, an annoying manipulation. Additionally, he used emphasis on wife/daughter, yet not including their voices, while minimizing his own position, which warrants the further parthian shot.
[dead]
I was never great at spelling. But at least it now has the plus of showing I'm not AI.