I've always thought there's a terrible and subtle kind of sexism in articles that are about women who do very interesting things, but ignore those interesting things to focus exclusively on gender. I don't think that's any less true when the way they bring up gender is positive; it's still reducing women to a single dimension.

However, this article isn't that. Out of the 13 questions here, only 1 was about gender and how gender affected her experience as a scientist. Any less and you would be arguing that that her gender wasn't relevant to her life at all, which is a pretty tenuous position to take.

I have to ask, did you read the article? It was a pretty good article and worth re-reading if all you got from it was "rah rah women rah rah". I particularly liked the question "Why do you love trees?".