Men exist as functions. To assume otherwise defies every single thing you actually act upon. Without perpetual fear hanging over their heads, they'll devolve into overt rapists and monsters that burn down the world.
You all secretly believe this. Stop pretending to care about us. It's about as trite as some 1990s neo-hippie caring about some non-induatrialized tribe du jour for Starbucks points.
> You're a well-meaning person, and you want to avoid causing unnecessary harm with your words.
I don't like the weaselly binary assumption here. You are implying "You are either a well-meaning person or you are not." That's an unbelievably narrow (and, honestly, childish) view of human interactivity. It also implies that you alone hold a monopoly on how "well-meaning" is defined and that it is your sacred duty to impose that doctrine on others.
You're basically attempting to confuse people into accepting your moral ethos as a candidate for common assumptions of what "well-meaning" should be.
This is underhanded and not well-meaning at all.
Perhaps you should try avoiding causing unnecessary harm with your words next time.
If you think pronoun accuracy is a primary concern regarding women in tech, I'm going to guess you have never seen a woman in tech. They are far more concerned about memory leaks and pointer management.