> This insistence on political correctness
It isn't "political correctness" - the phrase implies that the language has no real effect and changing it is merely for show, or as a political statement.
Using male pronouns as gender neutral has a measurable effect on comprehension that has studied and reproduced repeatedly. Using "he" pronouns as generics does in fact lead both men and women to exclude women in their comprehension of the sentence a statistically significant fraction of the time. See for example http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/27784423?uid=2&uid=4&s....
Revising language not a "thought barrier", it's an actual real benefit.
Your entire premise is false.
It is the construction of thought barriers, the creation of solely accepted behaviour and arbitrary creation of anormal behaviour, by redefining what is normal and not discriminating in any way (to use he in a normal sentence) as discriminating and bad and as a cause to lose an existence (i.e. getting fired).
It is morality not for creating good, but for appearing moralic, one of the lowest kinds of behaviour on an ethical level.
Damning someone who seemingly tried to hinder those artificial norms getting a foot into a project is a mistake.