I'm not the person you asked, but I don't see how Senator Warren speaking has much to do with women programmers. While there are lot of challenges, I don't think Ada Lovelace was denegrated. In fact, the quote about her is kind of nonsense as it refers to her historical significance as related to her actions at the time. Is this trying to say that she coded despite computer science historians trying to belittle her contribution after her death? Or is it poorly worded and intends to convey that people kept trying to stop her and she persisted (which is true as it was very difficult for her). "Despite continued assaults on the credibility of her contributions to modern computer science as the world’s first computer programmer, Ada Lovelace coded."

I also don't like how the article equates programming and its value system of efficiency and beauty as factors of value and correctness with the political aspect of Senator's Warren actions that uses a different value system. If you agree with Warren, then this article makes more sense because you think Warren was right, but was stopped. If you disagree with Warren, then you may think that she broke whatever rules of the Senate and was properly stopped.

Finally, I don't like how it equates all of these awesome female and non-binary programmer examples of success with Senator Warren's failure. She was stopped and Sessions was confirmed as attorney general. It would be cool if there was a better example that resulted in success, like Senator Warren's own story of how she became a senator.

The article isn't responsible for the recent re-purposing of the phrase "Nevertheless, she persisted", and I think it's a relevant connection to make.

And I read the "Nevertheless, she coded" as more of a global She, as in there are still women in computer science pushing for equality even in the face of the obstacles that women in tech have encountered in the past.

It's the little things.

For example, the inclusion of Elizabeth Warren and McConnell's line. What McConnell did (attempt to shut down resistance of the opposite party) was wrong-headed and undemocratic, but the only thing it had to do with gender was the use of a pronoun (edit: yodon is right).

Nobody would have paid much attention to it if he'd said "nevertheless he persisted", but a partisan attack was made into something about gender when there's no reason to believe it was so.

What does it really have to do with coding, anyway? It's inclusion says more about the author's goals than it does about the topic.

King is not "on camera praising sessions." She was a speaker at a public event where she was expected to acknowledge the other headliners in the room. She acknowledged his physical presence, nothing more, and if you watch the tape it's fairly clear she isn't happy about doing so and left him to the end of the list because of it.

"What McConnell did (attempt to shut down resistance of the opposite party) was wrong-headed and undemocratic, but the only thing it had to do with gender was the use of a pronoun"

If that were true, then why were the several men who spoke after her, and read the exact same letter, not disciplined?

They did not read the part that McConnell objected to as that was already read by Warren.