I think it is more the spirit of my fourth (sorry, third) point, which is that no one who aspires to skepticism should ever sound too self-satisfied or certain about their point of view, and that anyone who does is in some sense questionably entitled to self-label as a skeptic.

Which doesn’t mean they’re wrong. E.g., one does not have to BE a skeptic. A dedicated evangelical Christian cannot be faulted, for example, for a failure to be a skeptic, because they very likely profess no aspiration to be one. It is not obvious or apparent that one ought to be a skeptic. A skeptic in this sense might themselves be skeptical about the value of skepticism. It can be emotionally burdensome, it may be impossible to actually do with any consistency or commitment, it presumes a somewhat Cartesian view of consciousness and mind, and so on. But I think it ill-behooves anyone who finds the idea of skepticism appealing to be too highly self-regarding, too other-directed in their critical evaluations, etc., both rhetorically and substantively. “What do I know?” is a challenge to oneself, and in speaking to others, a challenge to demonstrate a strong basis for strongly held views or assessments. An aspiring skeptic who drastically misjudges their entitlement to certainty based on weak knowledge or casual reliance on ‘common sense’ and overheard speech is also not doing a great job of meeting that aspiration.

And just to be clear, I have no intention of entering into a discussion regarding the validity or lack thereof of any aspect of “gender studies”.