Feminazi outrage on occasion of Sotomayor confirmation hearings

How did arguments that we needed more diversity on the court get perverted into arguments that women shouldn't be on the court because they can't be impartial? The explanation seems to implicate a lot of feminist theory as well as a lot of anti-feminist reasoning.

One argument that women should be in the court is that the court will be better if it is more diverse. People who don't want women on the court can respond that the court is already perfect. Their respondents, then, in order to to suggest that a diverse judiciary improves the court, need to maintain the thesis that it is not already prefect. Why not? Well, sometimes and in some cases, the point of view of a person with a minority background will be distinctly relevant to coming to the right conclusion in a case. Then the opposition will then pounce: so, you are saying that race and gender make a difference? You must be a...reverse racist! (and...angry man-hating feminist!)

I guess the right things to stress in response are: (i) the aspects of the case at hand are really relevant to coming to the right conclusion. What's at issue is not that justices of different backgrounds will disagree, but that a diverse judiciary makes the judiciary as a whole more observant, and more likely to reach good results. The implication of the pouncer's argument is that these different results will be bad (mushy, weepy, touch-feely?) results. (ii) The idea that the court is already perfect, especially when it is not diverse, is silly. People who display epistemic hubris should not be rewarded by positions of prestige and high renumeration, particularly at the cost of excluding people who have a good sense of their own epistemic humility. It is very convenient for men to claim that the court is already perfect when (i) it is transparently to their advantage to do so and (ii) all sides would agree that any bias that exists benefits them.

The combination of the two allegations by anti-feminists does seem to be a bit inconsistent. Compare popular arguments for denying women the vote: (i) women are irrational and will wreck democracy by voting for the wrong people (presumably for emotional reasons etc.); (ii) having women participate in democracy is redundant, they'll just vote the way their husbands (or fathers) tell them to. Either women will change the outcomes of elections or they won't--surely we can agree on the disjunction; the important sleight of hand is that any change they do produce will be change for the worse.