[cbsmith]

Perhaps someone felt that it inappropriate to call the author out by name, and didn't feel that referring to them by a completely appropriate gender pronoun was in any way offensive... because, you know, being a woman isn't some kind of insult.

If it had read, "He's a data geek..." it would have only have been offensive because they got the gender wrong.

[bootload]

"... Perhaps someone felt that it inappropriate to call the author out by name, and didn't feel that referring to them by a completely appropriate gender pronoun was in any way offensive. ..."

I understand the line of reasoning, however the tone of the comments about the article are negative and not up to standard. [1] It is not a question of gender but how to discuss, acknowledge & discuss an authors work in a civil manner.

[1] cf https://twitter.com/hmason/status/248262821924720640

[cbsmith]

I agree the tone of many of the comments are not up to standard. I think both mine, and and the one you chose to go after were. Neither of us questioned her professional skills, talents, intelligence, awesomeness etc., just her domain expertise (in a domain which I'd think no one would expect expertise), which seems eminently reasonable given that the only indicators were a lack of said expertise. It seems even more reasonable because she acknowledged that she does not.

You are criticizing the people who are behaving in a civil manner for the behaviour of those behaving uncivilly. Try to focus on the jerks, there's an off chance they might get it.

[bootload]

"... You are criticizing the people who are behaving in a civil manner for the behaviour of those behaving uncivilly. ... Try to focus on the jerks ..."

Yes & no. I'm don't think I'm being that critical, 'why don't you refer to someone by name.' I take your point though. As for focusing on "Jerks", I ignore them. I'd rather point to measured responses like your own illustrating to "Jerks" how to respond.