I think there's a danger that US-specific models of diversity are being prioritised and presented as universal without noting how complex such things can be and how different cultures are from each other. I honour and support calls for diversity but I want them to work for everyone, not only for the subset who are mainly US or US-centred in their approach. I've certainly seen non-US writers of colour express concern about this and say that they feel excluded. The tendency some Americans have to define ethnicities in terms that are really about X-American rather than X makes this hard to talk about, too (I have no idea how Mr Correia, Ms Hoyt and Mr Beale actually identify but I would guess it's 'American' -- that's how they read to me, anyway. I'm not sure their ancestry is relevant to their views, either, at least not from those pieces by them I've read. I don't read them much because I find their politics and public opinions repulsive and wrong-headed.) And the same models arise around women. For good or ill, the US is currently dominant in sff and that has an effect. It's a mess and I am going to get shouted at for raising it here, too!
There's a small minority who behave unkindly in almost any situation. I find it hugely positive, though, that most of those who are active in trying to increase diversity are good people who are thinking hard about how to do the best they can for everyone.
I'm ambivalent about Will S. I've had interesting conversations with him in person and he has constructive things to say on class but at the same time he tends to the Old Left model whereby women's rights and the rights of non-whites should be subordinated to the wider struggle. Which doesn't work: it often compounds the problem. I've been there with the left wing men who are saving the world -- so get my beer, woman! They can't change conditions for us because they don't see them.
I will confess to an irrational prejudice against Ms Hoyt because I really didn't like her musketeers' books. This is very petty of me.