Because male and female pronouns have different connotations, an individual is immediately categorized into a set and assumed to have certain characteristics as soon as their sex is known. The English language forces us to divide people by sex, and, because people have different assumptions depending on whether someone is male or female, preconceptions are applied to them. Were it not for these differences, asking someone's sex would have no greater import than asking how to properly pronounce a person's name, and suggesting that females need female role models would make no more sense than arguing that green-eyed people need green-eyed role models. While there is no reason that specifying the sex of an individual is necessarily bad, it is in a culture where people associate so many characteristics with sex.
When masculine and feminine versions of the same word exist, the connotations often greatly differ:
I found myself saying `She's really a prince.' Appalled as I was at my own pro-masculine description, I just couldn't say that she was a princess because princess connotes someone who is fussy and spoiled and accustomed to living in the lap of luxury [Miller et al 1980, page 58,].
When I was at [X], I derived a good deal of satisfaction from watching my male friends describe my performance in [electrical engineering courses] --- `She's a .....goddess?'
Additionally, ``woman'' and ``man'' are not symmetrical:
If I write, `In the nineteenth century, the kings of nonsense were Edward Lear and Lewis Carroll', people will with no trouble get the message that those two men were the best of all nonsense writers at that time. But now consider what happens if I write, `The queen of twentieth-century nonsense is Gertrude Stein'. The implication is unequivocal: Gertrude Stein is, among female writers of nonsense, the best. It leaves completely open her ranking relative to males. She might be way down the list! Now isn't this preposterous? Why is our language so asymmetric? This is hardly chivalry --- it is utter condescension.
I got a recommendation from a college professor stating that I was `one of the top female students' in his class ( 100 students, 10 women, the women were not all at the top of the class, and I was).... I'm sure he meant it as a compliment.
Some men consider ``being a man'' to be high praise even to a woman, and expect her to be flattered at being called one. Here are some examples of women's reactions to being called a man, two from biographies (not of computer scientists) and one in response to my call for data:
One way [bias is expressed] is the attitude of women themselves. A female programmer here found out that the company next door, run by women, installs PC systems in offices. Her comment was, `That's pretty good for a couple of women.' Her words, not mine.
[Persing 1978] contains many
examples of masculine terms in everyday use.
Other terms exist besides ``being a man'' and ``one of the guys''. A
male high school teacher who recognized the sexism in ``dividing the
men from the boys,'' told the class that he intentionally replaced the
terms with ``wimps'' and ``studs,'' a usage he did not consider to
have gender implications. Indeed, ``stud'' is now a popular way to
compliment someone from work well done. What's ironic is that
``stud'' is an extremely male word. Its primary definition is a male
animal used for breeding. It is absurd that some consider it a
gender-free way to express admiration. When a female
professor expressed skepticism that anyone could think ``stud'' a
neutral term, it was called to her attention that a few months
earlier, she had told a roomful of female students that they would
have to ``gird their loins'' and get to work. This also derives from
male terms.