"He or she" or "they" seems like the obvious alternative.

Bleh. Using she clearly isn't neutral. Unless we are going for "boo boys, yay girls" vibe, which is dull. Also is ze really that much of a straw man considering I've seen luke and others use it here?

"They" seems appropriate, but LWers are nerds, they have far too little common sense for that. You know that two times out of three if they can be geeks about being "gender neutral" or some progressive silliness they will be.

Your comment suggests you think the discomfort experienced by women from this sort of thing is negligible. It very well may be, but as men I don't think we're in a position to know very well without asking women.

The simple truth is that even if we go out of our way to endorse woman friendly norms, they simply won't be making up half the readership. When doing utility calculus, you need to stop thinking in "half of the intended readership" and just thinking about half the actual readership the thing can get. Lets not kid ourselves that the likely audience split will be 50-50, check out the numbers in the relevant academic philosophy departments or even on LessWrong

I'm suggesting the radical notion that a female reader is as good as a male reader and no more. We ought to be maximizing the readership period, not worrying about its demographics except in a instrumental sense. Now obviously you don't want to signal that you aren't inclusive, that is the kind of thing an inbreed toothless bigoted redneck would do, so once someone brings it up you have to do something about it, but 9 times out of 10 that person bringing it up isn't doing the "audience maximisation" goal any good at all, especially once one factors in the opportunity costs of developer/administrator/writer time!

LessWrong readers are capable of shutting up and calculating, deciding to punch their own father in the face and not talk to him for a year in order to get 500k that can save plenty of lives, but they aren't willing to give a rough look to people who suggest the building needs 500k in modifications to make it handicapped friendly. I smell a scared cow with some pseudo-utilitarian rationalization lipstick. If they where capable of doing so they would realize that often the discomfort experienced by the minority fraction of readers does not at all outweighs the investment needed to accommodate them. Worse using such efforts conspicuously is a tribal marker away from the acceptable educated crowd norm, lowering the barrier to entry to the wrong contrarian cluster. Same goes for loudly arguing against such accommodations... I think I'm just trying to balance things out, obviously such thinking is really bad in being vulnerable to creating escalating signalling arms races that eat up more and more brain CPU cycles. But tell me who started escalating by stepping away from the Schelling point of default social norms?

Pursuing inclusivity to minor details such as the default use of gender in language has costs and much more importantly opportunity costs people here don't ever want to talk about. This wasn't someone complaining that people where putting up a "no handicapped" sign on their front door or being intentionally unwelcoming to women or anything, this was someone expecting that more effort than is the society wide norm be spent on it and assuming this is a cost we have to bare for some reason.

I think it just isn't worth it.

Come to think of it this drama isn't worth it either now that the white knight brigade have been alerted, so peace out dudes.

Edit: and dudettes!

Edit: and non-gendered people!

Edit: and non-people!

At least one man has concluded that defaulting to male third person pronouns made it more difficult for him to think clearly.

The universal male pronoun contributes to availability bias.

If one person insults another, who knows more about how much the insult hurt: the person who delivered it or the person who received it?

"insults another" implies intention here which is a bit of a straw man no? What if they are just offended that I've eaten on Sunday? Or used the language like it is normally used. I don't know maybe we shouldn't be eating on a Sunday or using the language like it is used but this is then probably political value warfare not "refining rationality".

Always assuming the "insulted" person is in the right is bad game theory. Even worse if you just assume that the person doing the "insulting" needs to always change when the insulted person is genuine in expressing their hurtness. On human brains such norms mean that exploiter utility monsters will develop rapidly to pump up all the status they can.