How do you see that? What do you disagree with?
I also don't like how the article equates programming and its value system of efficiency and beauty as factors of value and correctness with the political aspect of Senator's Warren actions that uses a different value system. If you agree with Warren, then this article makes more sense because you think Warren was right, but was stopped. If you disagree with Warren, then you may think that she broke whatever rules of the Senate and was properly stopped.
Finally, I don't like how it equates all of these awesome female and non-binary programmer examples of success with Senator Warren's failure. She was stopped and Sessions was confirmed as attorney general. It would be cool if there was a better example that resulted in success, like Senator Warren's own story of how she became a senator.
And I read the "Nevertheless, she coded" as more of a global She, as in there are still women in computer science pushing for equality even in the face of the obstacles that women in tech have encountered in the past.
For example, the inclusion of Elizabeth Warren and McConnell's line. What McConnell did (attempt to shut down resistance of the opposite party) was wrong-headed and undemocratic, but the only thing it had to do with gender was the use of a pronoun (edit: yodon is right).
Nobody would have paid much attention to it if he'd said "nevertheless he persisted", but a partisan attack was made into something about gender when there's no reason to believe it was so.
What does it really have to do with coding, anyway? It's inclusion says more about the author's goals than it does about the topic.
If that were true, then why were the several men who spoke after her, and read the exact same letter, not disciplined?