Very interesting. Another way to look at this using their numbers is that there is bias, but not very much.
Using the numbers from the study, of the 40% that used a pronoun, by the end, 60% of those folks used "They" - implying she or he.
It's unclear, but we could infer that about 25% used he and thus 15% used she.
So, really, it's only 6% of the population that was "biased" - i.e. using "he" when they expected a woman to win. (Since expectations were relatively mixed, let's say 60/40%, we can take 25 minus 15 to get 10% of a "biased" potential population...and then assuming a similar distribution, about 60% of those expected Clinton to win, but still used "he")
Is 6% endemic of society-wide challenges? Probably. But looking at probable trend lines (and even the increasing use of "they" towards the end of the election), it would seem the bias is becoming far less pervasive, and what remains is a very small proportion of the population.
Using the numbers from the study, of the 40% that used a pronoun, by the end, 60% of those folks used "They" - implying she or he.
It's unclear, but we could infer that about 25% used he and thus 15% used she.
So, really, it's only 6% of the population that was "biased" - i.e. using "he" when they expected a woman to win. (Since expectations were relatively mixed, let's say 60/40%, we can take 25 minus 15 to get 10% of a "biased" potential population...and then assuming a similar distribution, about 60% of those expected Clinton to win, but still used "he")
Is 6% endemic of society-wide challenges? Probably. But looking at probable trend lines (and even the increasing use of "they" towards the end of the election), it would seem the bias is becoming far less pervasive, and what remains is a very small proportion of the population.