I don't read The Economist for facts or details so much as to get a sense of what topics a current establishment can no longer afford to ignore. The details are secondary to the neccessity that a writer, a sub-editor, and a senior editor with tremendous personal stake in maintaining access to the circles that define establishment media, have collectively recognized that to remain relevant as a publication, the risk/reward on any ensuing controversy still means the magazine has to acknowledge which way the wind is blowing.
When The Economist says something is just starting, it means it's been brewing for at least several years and they need to comment on it. I don't think direct discourse on the topic improves the discussion on gender because the participants use a critical theory in which the promise of discourse is just bait to corner political targets for their mobs. However, we (and even The Economist) can recognize that popular tolerance for these tactics has finally reached an inflection point, and this change in attitude is what will finally allow real analysis and insight by thoughtful people into topics about gender.