[dizzystar]

The constitution doesn't excuse you from flinging poo at the writing style of a highly prolific and well-known writer for his choice of always using the feminine pronoun, regardless of the conclusions drawn therein. All you are attempting to do is downgrade the quality of the article because of something birthed from your own ignorance of the writer and your own insecurity.

At what point do you think "protecting" women by constantly attempting to create drama where none was intended at all (especially considering the author) is helping women feel more welcome to your industry? If "she" is not allowed to fail, then "she" is not accepted as an equal to the "he" that is able to fail with spectacular results. See how easy it is to spin intention against you based on null opinions?

[chromaform]

Why not simply use a neutral descriptor instead of a gendered one? If it is true that the author is as committed to the female pronoun as you suggest he is, isn't it therefore implied that he would only encourage such thoughtfulness at the intersection of language, gender, perception, failure, objectification and technology?

[pmarca]

So "it"?

[mindcrime]

Why not simply use a neutral descriptor instead of a gendered one?

Because English doesn't really have gender-neutral, singular pronouns? You're down to artificial sounding language full of "one" and "they" and "their" or using invented pronouns that aren't in widespread use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-specific_and_gender-neut...