[zamadatix]

"Your using the search function doesn't seem to have been appropriate to the task"

The search function is unbiased, interpretation is.

I appreciate your breakdown of how you delve into judging a author's intent factoring in the (assumed) writing skill but this is not the content of your comment I was referring to, rather:

"In re-reading the article though he _only seems to specify gender when it's a woman_. Perhaps he really disliked this woman or he has some bias he isn't aware of."

The _noted_ section is what I was describing as factually false and why I said maybe your delving into the author's work was biased. The search function reveals " he ", " him ", & " his " to be used more than " she ", " her ", an " hers ". In diving into interpretation it seems to be ignored that 2 paragraphs down the author resents a micromanaging male director, if this had contained "her" instead of "him" would it be interpreted total condemnation rather than chance? Why is this not also an emotional reaction and if so why does it matter less?

I.e. the article is balanced in calling out gender overall (as shown by word frequency) and the author seems to dislike people based on what they did (as seen by reviewing the sections called out) so the only way bias in re-reading can be called out here is if you're searching for it and ignoring what doesn't match.

[cannonedhamster]

I think your response to my comment is fair. Interpretation being required is why I disagree with a simple count function of gender pronouns. In rereading I did see what you were talking about with the make manager being discussed. I personally agree with your conclusion and could have worded my initial comment better to be clearer, it was early morning for me which is not when I'm at my peak mental faculties, so I apologise for my lack of clarity.