Right, so continue that thought into why you wouldn’t be affected by it.

Perhaps you wouldn’t actually feel quite so unwelcome in an education role as women might in STEM. I did a quick google to see if teaching was as female-dominated as STEM is male-dominated, and while yes it’s very close, hilariously the first result was about how there is still a gender based wage gap issue even though it’s so dominated in the other direction… Interesting.

So while you might think you can really put yourself in their shoes by imagining yourself in a teaching role, now try imagining yourself as a woman in a male-dominated field, in a male-dominated society, in a male dominated world. Could be a little bit different, maybe

That’s great! Same here, to be honest. But I also realise why it doesn’t affect me, because as a man I’ve never felt unwelcome in these spaces purely on account of my gender.

Kind of like how as a white guy, I wouldn’t really feel much other than a bit of surprise if someone called me a cracker. I haven’t felt oppression and prejudice connected to that word, or any other that is to do with my whiteness. But I do NOT then turn around and say “well why are people upset about being called n-words? They should just move on with their day like I can!”

So, not ‘exactly this’. I wrote that in my example an assumption had been made, whether I intended it or not.

Same as in the documentation this post is about, therefore the problem existed before it was pointed out.

The grammatical error to be fixed was the assumption in the language used. Both of these things are true. Pointing it out very simply, as part of providing the reason for the change, is completely normal

Ah OK, I think we’re getting to the heart of why you are saying that this wasn’t an issue.

When you say that the author wasn’t assuming anything, what exactly do you mean? If, for example, I write in a guide that if a user of my software does ‘a’ then he can expect result ‘b’, do you disagree that I am assuming my users go by he/him pronouns?

I might not have done it with intention, but there is an assumption being made there. Words mean things.

You seem very, very sure of there being “LITERALLY” no problem with the gendered pronoun being used for an unknown user.

Instead of hand-waving it away as the author being male and just prefering his own pronouns in his writing, we could maybe consider where it is being written and why it might feel particularly non-inclusive? ie: a field that has historically been very intentionally uninviting to women?

Also, it’s not like this was someone petitioning for a boycott over one assumed pronoun, they just quietly fixed the grammar and submitted the change. Absolutely nothing idiotic about it.