That Mathematical Intelligencer is not a research journal is immaterial. The Journal of Economic Perspectives isn't either, but if it retracted an acceptance because of political heat, without any other excuse, we in economics would be upset. NYJM actually suppressed the article-- accepted it, had the author sign over his rights, published it, and then replaced it with another article with the same number of pages. It did this, again, for political reasons, without offering any excuse. The article may or may not be appropriate for NYJM, but if, say, Econometrica, publishes an article and the editorial board thinks the editor made a mistake, as I'm sure happens now and then, they don't threaten to resign.
Thanks for the Gowers blog link. I am looking for what the other side of the story might be. Gowers, though, seems to be saying he doesn't like the paper's model. That's irrelevant too. I myself haven't read the paper and I just skimmed Gowers. The males-are-more-variable phenomenon the paper is about is well established empirically, and thought the theory was well established too, so I do wonder what the Hill paper adds. But lack of novelty---without outright plagiarism-- isn't something I've ever heard of papers being retracted for.