"::Well, , it's not a hoax exactly, but it's a prime example of what happens when you start out with a hypothesis and a ""worthy cause"" and then try to find any and all evidence  that supports it (no matter how far-fetched or in the case of the current draft blatantly wrong), instead of the other way 'round. The problem is, while there are examples of androcentricity in language (although its effect on cognitive and social processes is debatable), the examples she cites are not, and she makes the rather fatal mistake of conflating grammatical gender with ""natural"" gender and the diachronic with the synchronic analysis of language. She also seems to accept an extreme version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis completely uncritically, although the hypothesis is never even mentioned explicitly in the draft. It's pretty clear the author has not had any formal training in linguistics (or in the languages she has attempted to analyze), and appears not to have consulted the rather vast body of academic literature on androcentric language. Or perhaps she had, but decided ignore the inconvenient conclusions? In any case, it's fairly obvious why the original version of the book was not published by an academic press, and why the revised second version is self-published.   
"