I never am quite sure whether slowsteady's comments are meant to endorse or to parody the labels he often refers to and (what he takes to be) their conventional meanings whereby people's sexual natures are used for invidiously classifying them.
He seems especially interested in those labels and meanings which (he says) most directly implicate the relative status of human males on a "manliness" scale, which he also associates directly with their respectability and comparative worth in the eyes of women.
It is of course unclear what special qualifications he has which might suggest that his insight into the feminine perspective is reliable on this or any other issue.
I do agree that the benighted views he is expressing, although perhaps
he may not be personally espousing them, are widely shared among all kinds of people - including but not limited to those uncounted myriads of "low-information"* folk who don't know their arse from their elbow.
I also agree that activating such people's opinions with regard to ourselves can be damaging to our enjoyment of legitimate and important personal, professional and family interests, notwithstanding the profound stupidity of such opinions. Accordingly, we are well warned to keep certain facts about ourselves as private and safe as we can.
I just can't quite figure out whether slowsteady actually shares those retrograde views, against which he is implicitly advising us to keep our enjoyments on the down low. I guess it doesn't matter what he really thinks about all this - although, if he is NOT being ironic and sincerely believes that crap, I wonder why he is bothering to comment on this site?
I hope, as the Brits say, he is just having a bit of fun ...
*the current media-accepted euphemism for "pig-ignorant"