You took personal umbrage at what the ‘googler’ wrote and then proceeded to not address much of anything gender related with just a blase` “this guy doesn’t understand genders” (does that sound familiar from the ‘manifesto’ wherein opposing ideas are simply ignored and silenced?)
Then you simply dive into what you want to talk about — code. You go on to try to incarnate your life’s work — code. That’s romantic. You attempt to personify code and embody it in a feminine form and then say “see, this work is essentially woman”. What’s next? Are you going to say your code can have orgasms?
In the current world, with current issues, your attempt to weigh in on gender biases by way of coding idioms and paradigms really, really, really falls flat.
The third point I didn’t even read. I’m guessing you made some argument about how it’s so bad and awful to mankind. Nothing should be bad to listen to if you’re truly open minded… and patient… and cooperative — all those skills you claim to have in spades.
For posterity, I found certain parts of what this guy wrote troubling, but it’s even more troubling that you and Google did exactly what he said would happen; you silence and shame him.
Your voodoo is probably impressive, and sure, you might have some insight into women engineers, but it’s far from apparent based on your editorial.