What about the people who have the mindset where "The thing is not desirable" means they must deny at all costs "The thing is truth", and lose their empathy as a result? If you can't see through the people' perspective and find out what they want, how will you persuade them not to do what you don't want them to do? YC's motto is "Make something people want" after all.[1] The war reporter has traveled into a war, mingled with soldiers, and came back to share his experience, to tell us what is. And here you accuse, without having met him, of having a "fundamentally "Christian right" paradigm.". If you were more accepting of the truth of his experience, you'd be explaining what things men could do instead to differentiate themselves from women and achieve the manhood they so desire, instead of going to war.
I'd take this a step farther, and argue that the author's "doing otherwise is rejecting evolution" framing is actually a rather common "Christian right" paradigm.
There's a biblical mindset which constantly intermingles "The revelation is truthful" with "The revelation indicates the proper path". The author is assuming the inverse relationship: "If you don't like it, you must not believe in it."
It's a type of normative fallacy, because you can't naively search-replace "bible text" with "science paper". They are qualitatively different kinds of claims about the world.