Assuming your question is in good-faith, here's likely where the list came from:

https://gender-decoder.katmatfield.com/static/documents/Gauc...

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with this, but this will help explain it. (I will note that the paper often uses the word "analyze" itself, for what it's worth.)

Thanks for the actual reference.

The feminine/masculine assignment list verges on insulting on its own. Autonomy is masculine? Objective? Logic?? Reads like a 80s cartoon stereotype.

> Reads like a 80s cartoon stereotype.

Yeah, that's the point. The words are supposed to be gender stereotypes, and they are in fact taken from literature circa ~90s-00s (not the 80s but we all know the stereotypes were still prevalent then). It's not supposed to be insulting, these are presented in an academic context with extensive references to the prevailing literature.

As a manager of people that includes women, I am always trying to understand how I can be more inclusive.

The paper you linked uses the word "analysis" 10 times and never in a listing of "gendered words".

What is the gendering of the word "analysis"?

Appendix A, it's written as `Analy*` to include variations (analyze, analysis, etc).

This paper doesn't say you can/can't use these words, but rather just categorizes them as "gendered".

Thanks for the pointer, but I am still confused about the categorization of "analysis" and now also "competitive".

For some reason, both of these words are included in patterns ("analy*" and "compet*") in the "Masculine Words" list; however, the methodology for Study 1 indicates that the word "competitive" is agentic and has to do with agency rather than gender.

It then references several papers for where they sourced their lists, but I can only access some of them. In the ones I was able to access, I can't find discussion on why "analysis" or "competitive" are considered masculine words. Many of the ones I can't access are older studies, perhaps not incidentally.

I work with "analysts" many of whom are women and they are expected to perform "analysis" as part of their job. A research study I found[0] indicates as much as 48% of women are in "Analyst" roles.

The study referenced in the paper you linked looked at roles where the largest group of women in a male dominated profession was 26% for computer programmers.

I am sure it is very complicated and I'm missing lots of things in my quick survey, but in this admittedly cherry-picked example I don't understand how "analyst" is considered a masculine word when there is near parity between genders in "analyst" roles.

I wonder if some of these words are coded based on biases from times gone by -- maybe back in the 1970's and 1980's most "analysts" were male and therefore most "analysis" being performed by males, but in 2020's this does not seem to be the case.

[0] https://www.zippia.com/analyst-jobs/demographics/

>Thanks for the pointer, but I am still confused about the categorization of "analysis" and now also "competitive".

Let me try to abate some of your confusion: you are approaching this with the assumption that the research and policies originate from a position of good faith. They don't. The motivations are petty jealousy, greed, and insecurity. It's much easier from an emotional perspective to blame "the system" (i.e. white men) than to acknowledge that some groups are more likely to be better suited for certain occupations than others. Racism and sexism are convenient excuses which direct attention away from personal insufficiencies. That's partly why this dogma is so intoxicating - and the other reason is that it's misleadingly presented in a way that implies it can only result in more positive outcomes. Add in the stigma against questioning any of this and the outcome is a rigid orthodoxy which is totally removed from western liberal values of equality of opportunity, which is being deliberately conflated with equality of outcome.

See the link in my post. The claim is that women are discouraged from applying. Frankly it's bullshit.