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