I thought that Pye's response to skip was a sufficient rebuttal, reinforced by her direct rebuttal to xerox - but I suppose there are a few points that I can add.
You'll want to be careful about assumptions such as this, Elizabeth. If not commenting ("skipping") a post is "sufficient rebuttal" then I have no idea how this game is played. Nor does non-comment imply full agreement. Please note as well that my "direct rebuttal" to xerox regarding nurturing/providing was not "direct rebuttal" to the entire original post, but further questions on this one point.
No young woman grows up with the majestic dream of driving to a fertility clinic to buy the seed of her future baby . . . And the only way she could fail [relational matters] is if she's psychologically damaged . . . etc.
Children grow up with all sorts of "majestic dreams" for their adult lives that do not end up matching reality. I imagine any 'psychological damage" to come in the form of his or her inability to adjust to the reality of things. What difference does it make whether a woman has had a "traumatic relationship history" before making decisions such as these? These are the same things that become deep reasons for men to bag certain aspects of life in practice, too.