Woah, reading the article looks a ton more like misinterpretation and the notice of making a conclusion on what's given--there should've really been better wording in communication with the author (as noted in the comments, there's a lot revolving around the idea of 'edit' when 'edit' wasn't really clarified given both sides moving towards contextual interpretation...that doesn't seem clearly stated directly).
That said, it seems...really like miscommunication given the theme of 'story-generator' being a root cause :/ So it then comes off that 'these variables in the code seem to have been made for that', and the rest is association and connection. (And in part of the commentary received to the developer...it seems his research on gender and stuff comes from only a handful or one predominant culture given the studies he's working with. >.<). It's a ton less 'any malice at all' and a ton more 'incomplete knowledge base probably?', but the perception of each others' writing seems to be connected to some kind of concept that the other is writing something with "implied" details...where making implications don't really need to even apply because it's in the need of communication. Hence miscommunication.
But I did notice where the article shifted between analysis of code...and the lacking notice of 'probability instead'. The wording appears too rigid. (Which gives the impression that the article is lacking, but there is the question on why the code was as is? But then open communication seems confusing given what was written x_x I don't understand much about what's going on.)
Also the 'academic studies' given are distinctly noted to not be general for the world population at large. That too.
That's the importance of why specifics are noted in academic research along with the importance of the sample population and its own reasoning for being a sample. To avoid generalization, implied or otherwise. [Not everywhere is the culture of one country, even if the country may be made from a dynamic population]
But it seems many conclusions are being drawn in that news article that would be better off being noted as 'work in progress' rather than 'hidden motive in the making'. It's incomplete, and thus lacking (or a skeleton build which is always open to modification). x_x