I imagine it's the title of the article, which doesn't reflect the sex-linkage of depth perception discussed in the article, and instead implies malicious intent of Oculus.
However, there is actually substance there, silly "provocative" title aside.
And unlike most people who use the term "sexism", she actually carefully defines her terms. If a normal person says "a pullup bar is sexist", we'd think they are crazy, since we'd be find the moral judgements that person is making to be nonsensical. But because we know her definition, we can simply acknowledge "by your unusual definition a pullup bar is sexist".
She has helpfully enabled us to avoid falling into this trap: http://lesswrong.com/lw/np/disputing_definitions/
It would be great to see more research into this problem but I really don't see the need to push the sexism angle.