"Correct" clearly is not, in shokwave's statement, intended to refer to its truth value. There are other forms of correctness, such as obeying the rules.

It was the correct assumption to make, in precisely the same way that 2 for 1 odds on a coin flip is the correct bet to take. That is why I included the context of "given his knowledge or priors" directly after the part you quoted.

dfranke didn't make a "correct" assumption, he made an "unnecessary" assumption.

I should have included "if he wished to gender his pronouns". I meant to communicate that the assumption he made was the correct one given his information and priors at the time; I grant that it spilled over into saying that gendering his speech was a correct choice and I did not intend that.

I find it really quite surprising and disheartening that the Less Wrong community doesn't have an interest in making a habit of avoiding these

Actually we do - as I said in the previous comment we are partial to this practice, but it is not (yet) a community norm the way that, say, having read the Sequences, or arguing in good faith allowing for the possibility of changing your mind is. I fully expect it will soon become a norm.

A note on indignation: although it's a greasy social psychology point, indignation isn't the correct response unless it is a community norm. Reacting indignantly to something which is normally reacted to neutrally or ignored marks you as the unreasonable one, instead of the person that casually insulted you. Of course, this is only where "correct response" means "response that achieves the goal you want". (There's another interpretation of "correct response" that would say that indignation is a correct response, and that it fails to achieve the goal you want is a fact about the environment, not about the response).

if the community assumes that everyone in the community is male, then the community is more likely to lose female or third-gender members

Given the concern that LessWrong already suffers from style and interest deficiencies in such respects, this is a crucial matter. I don't know how to address it other than to increase my efforts to avoid gendered speech and more often point it out to others.

dfranke didn't make a "correct" assumption, he made an "unnecessary" assumption.

Excuse me, I know you are not the first person to use the pronoun 'he' regarding dfranke, but are you certain it is appropriate? (Incidentally, I did notice that you avoided making that assumption in your initial complaint about being labeled a 'guy'. Has dfranke self-identified as male somewhere since then?)

dfranke didn't make a "correct" assumption, he made an "unnecessary" assumption.

It's not completely unnecessary, it's grammatically more convenient to use a specific gender. It's a question of priorities in deciding what to say, not of factual knowledge. You would be incorrect to argue that no a priori knowledge about your gender exists, or that it doesn't say "probably male".

I can personally attest that dfranke is male.