I am no Vinaya expert, to say that first. But reading through the book (which I admit I haven't read fully, but also not just the isolated quotes), the main questions raised in the book seems whether bhikkhus can ordain bhikkhunis. That means, to ordain them without bhikkhunis. However, in the case of this topic that is totally irrelevant because this is not how it happened. The ordinations were performed by bhikkhunis, so vinaya-wise there is no wrong-doing, on that subject at least. And unless I missed something, nobody at the ordination was formally accused of breaking the vinaya. So if there were real solid objections, were are they? (As I said I'm no expert, but I trust those who did the ordination and those who had the possibility of making an objection afterward)
So then the question becomes: do we see these nuns that did the ordinations as representative of the original sangha? Apparently some people don't think so - or at least look at their order in such a way that they can't ordain "Theravadan" nuns. Whatever Theravadan would mean exactly.
I'm not trying to create friction anywhere, but I'm just wondering what is acceptance and how do we best practice it with respect to this topic. In my eyes the best acceptance is to see the ordaining and ordained nuns as following the vinaya and as representatives of the original sangha. However anybody else thinks it's best to practice is their business, but having doubts about the certainty of future bhikkhunis is a strange reason not to ordain them or not accept their ordination. It has very little to do with actual concern for women's benefits. It's a bit like being afraid food makes you sick in the future, so you decide not to eat at all. You avoid a potential problem (however unlikely), but at the cost of what? Is this healthy? Is this acceptance and loving kindness?
I will also leave it at this unless somebody has a specific question or correction.