It is actually relevant in this case because the text portraits defensive communication as bad, and this editing stance fits the bill. In fact the current state of political speech in the west puts everyone in defense, such as with this kind of crap.
Anyway a great read, it applies to various contexts, from work and family to politics and online discourse.
I call this the 'everything is related to everything somehow' truism - sure, you can make the case for almost any comment or submission but it's not some universal beat-the-forum-conventions cheat code. Could one write some sort of reasonable comment critiquing this edit? Maybe. But generic, reflexive harumphing is not that and tends to trash threads which is one of the many reasons it's discouraged.
Appealing to the rule books is a lazy way to avoid a discussion that if approached according to the rules can be held enjoyably. I don't want to believe that you are arguing in bad faith, but it feels like you are, because you conveniently ignored the rest of the reasonable criticism ahead of you to further your appeal.
Disdain for the alterations of this article speak to the intent behind the article itself. Ironically, the editor places the focus of a possible reader's defenses at the top.
The article can be seen as a justification or explanation of why a person would be averse or become defensive toward arbitrary (and possibly unauthorized) edits for the sake of gender inclusivity.
The edits themselves can be read as exclusionary if we speculate that they were made to signal to the editor's own audience rather than to be shared with the general public...
or as an attempt by the editor to impose the norms of his age and culture otto that of the original author's...
in addition to imposing his perceived norms and culture onto contemporary readers.
It's worth noting that Joseph Reagle is an academic with an interest in "geek feminism". I don't bring this up to paint him is blameworthy, but to add context as to why he may have made these changes. And I doubt he ever intended an audience beyond the scope of his profession and interests to see his edition of the article.
So there's that. Harumph-humph-harumph. Maybe your appeal was not made in bad faith after all. You have received two attempts at criticizing the edits. Harumph-humph-harumph.
Appealing to the rule books is a lazy way to avoid discussion
This is the entirety of the comment we are discussing:
"Edited only to reduce gender-specific references". Really?
Effectively it just says ‘Really?’. This is neither discussion nor evidence of any effort to engage in one so if these things matter to you, you might be better off bringing them to the attention of the author of that comment.
Yeah, and in spite of that comment people are trying to offer a line of discussion that is in conformity to the guidelines you cited.
But it looks like you're more interested in policing the discussion according to guidelines than engaging in the discussion after people get hip to your policing.
At this point, I'm doubtful if you even tried to read the article that we're talking about because this exchange is starting to feel like a dramatic meta-demonstration of the subject matter (defensive communication) and the community's response to the subject matter (the editor's perceived ignorance of how their changes contribute to defensive behaviors) and I don't think that you are primed to appreciate the success of this achievement.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html