I was not making an argument; I was stating a fact. Refraining from addressing someone's statement other than to label it "ad hominem" is itself an ad hominem argument, however.
The major thrust of her article is where she presents herself as the typical specimen proving that women both exist in the tech world in large numbers and are oppressed by pronouns in comments on the internet. Unfortunately, her chromosomes, as well as the male privilege she spent the majority of her life reaping the benefits from, make her the ultimate antithesis of her own point, and she does the opposite of dispelling any stereotypes people may harbor.
Ok, its been about 10 hrs, so maybe you would be able to read this comment objectively:
1. An Ad-Hominem argument is one where you attack the other based on their credentials to have an opinion on an issue without commenting on the argument itself. That's specifically what you did.
2. >>"Refraining from addressing someone's statement other than to label it "ad hominem" is itself an ad hominem argument, however."
-- this is a weird piece of logic I must say. See definition of ad hominem above. Where did I challenge your "statement" by saying that you are not un-biased enough to have an opinion. If you still disagree, see http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html and let me know what I am missing
3. Let me respond to your main argument as well - you say that the fact she was a guy "does the opposite of dispelling any stereotypes people may harbor" - ONE - not everyone knows she was a guy. Therefore, most people would take the argument for what it is and think about it. TWO - even if people know she was a guy, why do you assume that other readers are primitive enough that they will let that be a factor? Note - they aren't seeing her in real life - they are just reading an article at their leisure.
