I for one prefer a world where 'hysteria' is a gender-neutral term rather than one where we shift it back to gendered for the sake of taking offense. That would be going backwards.

There's plenty to object to in the parent comment without going there.

You can't shift it "back"; the accusation of excess emotionalism has always been gendered in English. Look at Shakespeare talking about "womanish", for example.

The comment from the throwaway account is already heavily gendered. Pointing out one of the gendered tropes used in service of that is entirely on topic. There's no reason to sweep it under the rug.

Except we've had about 75 years of it being increasingly ungendered, to the point where I'm pretty sure most people don't even KNOW the etymology you're referring to.

The outrage junkies are the only ones keeping the gendered definition alive at this point. Great job everyone.

If you are making the claim that the use has recently become entirely ungendered, then let's see your evidence. Note that there are two aspects: one would have to be that it's applied equally to the genders, and the other is that it no longer draws upon gender stereotypes. (As an example of latter, saying that somebody "hits like a girl" is highly gendered but is said mainly to boys.)

I'd prefer that world too, but it's tough to change hundreds of years of culture.

The point is that it's not going back to gendered. It always is. The sexism in that word is much more subtle now, but it has not gone away.

That’s not how language works. These things have a history of usage which informs their meaning. The dictionary is the cliffs notes. The true meaning is how it has been used throughout time.