If someone said "The remarkably small circle of mostly hair stylists who control bitcoin" would you have responded so many times? No, there's something about gender here that's got you incensed. I'm not trying to sound flippant, but I think there's more to this than genitals and the amount of relevance that genitals or gender has to the story.

First though, I think you're confusing what was said. The starting sentence of the article is:

> Coinbase Global Inc.’s filing to become a publicly-traded company provides a glimpse into the remarkably small circle of mostly men who command the incredibly lucrative digital landscape.

That's not a statement about "men own most bitcoins" it's saying that Coinbase Global is run mostly by men. This is easily proven. You can look right here - 5 out of 7 of their executive team are men and 7 out of 9 on their board are also men - https://www.coinbase.com/about

So someone responded about that first sentence saying 'Any article that uses the sentence "mostly men" in the first paragraph is highly likely not worth reading'. You agreed with that sentiment, pointing out why - you think mentioning gender is irrelevant and furthermore it is a "perversion" for someone to do so. (Would it be a perversion if they said "hair stylists"?)

Here's why I think you're wrong on that point though. You're strictly equating "gender" and "genitals" as if they're synonyms. They're not. If you think that's true, try an experiment: Ask random people the first thing that comes to their mind when you say the word "men" or the word "women" to them. I'll bet you money that the vast, vast majority of people will not just say "penises" or "vaginas". They'll say so many other things because those words convey so much more than just genitalia.

In the news they constantly mention the gender of people, especially if the group of people they're discussing are all or even mostly one gender. That's because it helps listeners picture what's happening in their mind. Moreover, reversed gender roles are absolutely interesting to people. For instance - most criminals are men [0], so if a group of women robbed a bank you can rest assured that the news would absolutely say "A group of women robbed a bank" and also that it would be so interesting to people that they'd make a movie about it. Even if men robbed the bank, they would say "a group of men" because if they said "a group of people robbed a bank" people would want to know - so if it's a mixed group the news will say "two men and a woman robbed a bank today."

Why are most men criminals though? It's probably because men are just generally more aggressive than women. That fact is just one of the many that will occur to people when they hear about a group of people doing something. Genitalia is the furthest thing from their mind.

In the end, I don't know exactly why Matthew Leising, the author of this article, even mentioned that it's mostly men that run Coinbase Global. I know for a fact that most people would not be bothered at all by this tidbit of information being mentioned though. I'm not. I don't even care about bitcoin and I'm not even sure why I bothered to read these comments. One thing I am concerned about though is how people are squaring up to fight over these types of things. Why do you have such a strong reaction to someone mentioning the possible/probable gender ratio of a group of people? Perhaps the subject of societies treatment and recognition of gender in general is something close to your heart? I don't know - but I don't want the world fighting over this too so I'd like to help if I can.

[0] https://www.google.com/search?q=gender+percentage+of+crimina...