This is a somewhat aggressive distortion of my words. I was merely referring to the fact that forcing the use of incorrect English will not help in the current situation of gender imbalance. And a reference to the "unconscious bias in our field" in the parent comment needs concrete citations and evidence to be of value to the discussion.
How I truly wish there were more women in the field! But very few choose that profession, unfortunately. That is sad... I am not ready, however, to speculate about the reasons, since I don't have enough information.
That is the reason for the reference to oppressive regimes - only there do people cripple the language to keep everything neutral and soulless, and only there do people make unverified assertions about non-existent enemies and conspirators.
Unfortunately, it’s far too common to see your words twisted if you do not conform to some groups’ views on social justice. You made a good and valid point, don’t let others bully you into changing your beliefs.
What's even more unfortunate is that my views generally align with theirs - liberal and democratic. Yet those groups often very quickly put down any serious discussion, even if there is a minor and delicate criticism of their assertions. We should be more calm, especially in matters where we generally agree.
What "incorrect English" is being suggested? If it's the singular "they", then you must at least concede there's some debate about it, but most scholars have no grammatical problem with it. Using the term "forced" here also does a bit of a disservice to actual cases of compelled speech and restriction of speech (by governments, corporations etc.) - GP was very explicit that you're free to use the pronouns you want. If that's not unforced, I don't know what is.
>will not help in the current situation of gender imbalance
I'm not sure about "they" because it's so commonplace, but "she" might definitely cause someone to do a double-take. In fact, in academic philosophy, "she" instead of the expected "he" in thought experiments is very common, and on amateur philosophy forums, you can see that it does make people double take. Maybe that fact is something in favor of the argument that we tend to assume, as English language stylists have frequently in the past, that a third person is for some reason by default a "he". Arguably, being 'forced' to consider by reading why we were thrown off by a 'she' instead of a 'he' could go some way to seeing if we have the unconscious biases GP assumed exist. That 'evidence' might just lie with some introspection.
You're too quick to make assumptions about people who speak with you. English grammar, for example, does not have any facilities to create gender-neutral pronouns for every single noun (only for some). It's just a fact whether we like it or not. German, for instance, is more flexible in this regard. But languages evolve over centuries, and changes to grammar cannot be organically introduced to suit a new thinking on social life (however reasonable it is).
How I truly wish there were more women in the field! But very few choose that profession, unfortunately. That is sad... I am not ready, however, to speculate about the reasons, since I don't have enough information.
That is the reason for the reference to oppressive regimes - only there do people cripple the language to keep everything neutral and soulless, and only there do people make unverified assertions about non-existent enemies and conspirators.