Okay, let me try again.
1. I agree that the opposing voice was underrepresented in the POS article that was clearly trying to stir something up. No argument here.
2. I've never claimed to tell anybody what is insulting or not (despite your insistence that I am). My point is that we can reasonably ascertain that something might be insulting to a population (and I thought it was clear in this case, but clearly others disagree). It was evident to me that some would take offense at this from the beginning. Why? Well, if it's just a camp that caters to people who need a beginning course on football, why make it for women only? Men should be invited. The problem there is that it assumes that men don't need such a course (and as both Lefty and Tante pointed out, clearly I do). Do you not see the issue with that from a marketing perspective? Secondly, if the goal of the engagement is simply to reach out to all women, why imply that anybody attending would need a basic course? I'm not sure why people don't see how that could be viewed as insulting.
3. If the course is in fact designed specifically for women who desperately need a basic lesson in football, then I concede that it's well enough named. But I don't think that's the point, nor do I find that a prudent strategy for engagement.
4. I'm sure that some women attended (will attend) and enjoyed (enjoy) themselves very much and didn't give the name a second thought. Somehow it was never my point that such a creature would be as rare as Nessie, though you seem to have read that in my posts.