If you're trying to imply that the whole thing is about gender, then I submit that even the author disagrees with you: > I am structurally incapable of being

If you're trying to imply that the whole thing is about gender, then I submit that even the author disagrees with you: > I am structurally incapable of being Technical because in the world we have built, Technical must always be conditional for people like me, buffeted around by some unearned privileges and some undeserved exclusions as mediated by people’s perceptions and the current social location of my gender, class, race, ideological perspective, the role-related identities that the label put on my work gives me, and all of the other categories our brains are using to slice up this planet in between meteor strikes. So it's not just gender, it's a whole litany of stuff, including class, race and "ideological perspective" (whatever that means) that prevents "being technical". You could be forgiven for missing this, though: the article isn't trying very hard to have a coherent point. Perhaps another reason the author isn't "technical" is an inability to write clearly.