One wouldn't expect a second-year engineering textbook to be comprehensible to the average reader. There are specific terms you have to learn and use, terms that are not in general usage. The main criticism I have for both these arguments is that you are on very shaky ground if your revolutionary ideas exclude the majority of the population at the outset. Even if you are using the most feminist ecriture feminine in the world, the fact remains, the majority of women may not understand you, in fact, they may be alienated. It's a nice concept, but the actual effect is to make her name stand out by contrast to common usage.
Common usage is very very important.
Not that you should follow it unquestioningly, but it is a contant negotiation. This leads to argument 2, that such language may not be common usage, it may be a specialized language. This is a step in the right direction, logic-wise. It can also be a step away from a revolutionary goal. This raises the issue of language and motive.