Answer

Greetings to the gentleman from beyond the holy place in Nitzivin, a servant of the holy people dwelling in this place, whose net is spread throughout the web.
And so as not to leave the page blank, and out of affection for your holiness, I will allow myself to offer a few grains in response to your words.

1. I did not say that there is no philosophy by Jews. There isn’t really such a thing, but perhaps there are some Jewish contours. When I say there is no Jewish philosophy, I mean that conclusions should not be derived on the basis of Jewish sources, nor tested by how well they fit those sources. Philosophy is something universal—that is, what is true is true for all human beings, even if its source is foreign; and what is not true is not true even for Jews, even if its source is among the greatest Torah sages.

2. To my shame, I did not hear about the controversy over the Chabad conference in Tel Aviv regarding gender separation. As for your question itself, I have no sharp lines. But in principle, as long as an adult person or a community makes decisions, it is not right to interfere in their lives. As long as it is acceptable to all those concerned, you can try to persuade them, but there is no justification for coercion. By the way, usually that is not helpful either. There may perhaps be exceptional cases, but right now I cannot think of such a case. (It would have to be a case where I am convinced that the people did not make an autonomous decision. That is, of course, a vague and problematic criterion, since there are many who are convinced that whenever someone does not think as they do, it means the decision was not autonomous—as in the case of Haredi and Muslim women.)

3. I have no criteria. It can also change with time and place. Therefore one has to experience the situation in order to form a position about it. In any case, as I wrote above, even if there is something that does seem to me like oppression, as long as the “oppressed” person agrees and is an adult—there is no justification for intervening.

4. Every extremism is good in the sense that you should act according to your understanding and not be wishy-washy. Bad extremism is the content of the position you believe in—that is, seeing things as black or white. That is usually not correct.
Of course, there is also proportionality in using force on behalf of your position. I advocate tolerance, and the use of force in the wrong place can also be considered illegitimate extremism.

5. I do not know enough, but I am not sure that it does not appear there. On the contrary, I assume that it certainly does appear there too, though in different forms. Beyond that, there is a difference in the timeline. Sometimes things appear elsewhere at a later stage; the ripening time is different.
But even if you are right, what is good for the East is not necessarily good for the West. It reminds me of suggestions to learn the virtues of socialism from Scandinavia. Quite apart from the fact that this is a different kind of socialism, and usually involves tendentious and partial presentation of data, one cannot necessarily learn from them to us. Jews have a different character, and not everything—careful, understatement!!—that is right for Swedes is right for Israelis.
By the way, this question is related to the previous ones. The West is more ideological and proceeds according to labels. Part of that is its religious heritage, which distinguishes between heretic and believer, and between this god and another. In the East it does not work that way. It is more pluralistic and polytheistic. Therefore extremism appears there in other forms. (Though Chinese communism is a refutation of that, but this is not the place to elaborate.)