[jacalata]

I didn't say you specifically agreed with what he said on Twitter. I categorised your suggestion that using gender neutral language would be 'daft' together with his idea that it would be 'boring'. If you want to, go ahead and explain why these are such different ideas that I should not have done so.

The article wasn't written in the first person, it was written as instructional and in the second person (I vs you). Writing in the second person is generally an attempt to connect with an audience. Language choices such as using gender neutral pronouns and references can be made to connect more or less with different audiences, and this author rejected them because it wasn't worth it to him. I do not like his decision not to bother including me as his targeted audience. If you don't like that I don't like that, well that is your own inner workings, why does it bother you so much when I want to be included?

[Wintamute]

Why do you feel so excluded? I feel quite capable of empathising and responding to written content whatever the distribution of genders. One of the joys of consuming human culture is letting yourself be put in the position of others, whether or not (or maybe especially if) they don't match your gender. The fact that the guy was teaching his girlfriend was an important data point to him, its part of the piece, but no need to feel excluded.

[novalis]

I said it was daft in the context of his recount. You seem to miss important parts and move the goal posts a lot there and the passive agressive reuse of others language and the cherry picking stuff ain't my thing at all, so I will leave you going at it alone. I do not wish to engage at that level at all.