How I truly wish there were more women in the field! But very few choose that profession, unfortunately. That is sad... I am not ready, however, to speculate about the reasons, since I don't have enough information.
That is the reason for the reference to oppressive regimes - only there do people cripple the language to keep everything neutral and soulless, and only there do people make unverified assertions about non-existent enemies and conspirators.
I'm not going to spoon-feed you in a vain attempt to get a seat at the table for a discussion you clearly don't want to have.
Please investigate unconscious bias for yourself.
What "incorrect English" is being suggested? If it's the singular "they", then you must at least concede there's some debate about it, but most scholars have no grammatical problem with it. Using the term "forced" here also does a bit of a disservice to actual cases of compelled speech and restriction of speech (by governments, corporations etc.) - GP was very explicit that you're free to use the pronouns you want. If that's not unforced, I don't know what is.
>will not help in the current situation of gender imbalance
I'm not sure about "they" because it's so commonplace, but "she" might definitely cause someone to do a double-take. In fact, in academic philosophy, "she" instead of the expected "he" in thought experiments is very common, and on amateur philosophy forums, you can see that it does make people double take. Maybe that fact is something in favor of the argument that we tend to assume, as English language stylists have frequently in the past, that a third person is for some reason by default a "he". Arguably, being 'forced' to consider by reading why we were thrown off by a 'she' instead of a 'he' could go some way to seeing if we have the unconscious biases GP assumed exist. That 'evidence' might just lie with some introspection.