You're essentially trying to fix reality by altering datasets which is a completely erroneous way of solving the problem.
It's playing God by determining what is right and what isn't all alone and without the input of society.
Ethical reflection on the intent and impact of the systems one builds is not mandatory in our field (it is for other professions) but probably still a good thing to consider if you want your contribute to society to be a positive one. Taking time to think about this stuff in a MOOC sounds like one way of avoiding doing that thinking alone and without the input of society.
I agree that it would be nice if the returned vector would be "doctor" in both cases but the embedding code (the implementation) or the embedding algorithm (theory) have no idea about gender, ethics or moral.
Here the bias comes from the datasets the AI trained on.
The bias of those datasets comes from society writing texts in a biased way.
So the solution to fixing this "bias" is fixing the language used in society which is not an AI problem nor a dataset problem.
Assembling a database for the purpose of de-biasing might also prove unfeasible because of inductive bias.
It's not a competence thing, or stopped being since woman doctors are a thing, and is a motivation thing. Not to a 'better' place, but a different one.
I would argue this is a decidingly effective way to solve the problem.
Learn to take criticism before it’s too late and you crash and burn.