Thanks for the lengthier response -- it makes it easier to come to grips with what you're saying.
I certainly fretted about my own response, because I know there's a fine line, when you take on the role of an interlocutor, between "trying to keep an open mind about what someone might mean" and "covering up for someone who's trying to pull some shit," and very often the latter masquerades as the former because people know they can't get away with covering up shit in an overt way these days.
Anyway, I think the real issue is that, yes, this blog post could have used less unnecessary provocation and more "this is the audience I write for and what I know about -- this may not apply in your case." And I think that you can still get something out of it if you play that disclaimer in your head while reading it, even though it's not there.
A brief mention of gay men doesn't make up for the tone of the article, so to speak, but what I'm saying the article is what it is, Jensen writes the kind of characters she writes for the audience she has. I don't think either of us would instruct her to stop doing that. I think what we all want is more awareness and less myopia, when it comes to pieces that deal explicitly with gender and sexuality (because, let's face it, the thesis "hot men" crosses that line).