I understand that, but you've literally just tacked extra words onto what he said that completely twist the meaning of what he said, and then asking if he's saying that.

Even if you're only asking not saying, it's overtly cynical and borderline a strawman argument. Like "I'm not saying he beats his wife, I'm merely asking if he does!" Its' really not fair to twist someone's words like that unless you have good reason to assume he is speaking in bad faith.

What he said was "male leaders with strong enthusiasm for gender equality are still needed" -- that's not controversial at all, but tacking something on to make it cynical and nasty is.

he's sidestepping the question of why a man is in charge of/has power over a women's empowerment even

Maybe... but I think the answer to that is probably something as simple as Japan made the choice (however boneheaded it was) to send a man to the meeting as their representative, and since the meeting was in Japan, he was the chair. It's usually better to assume ignorance than malice.