It's not purity in language, it is paying basic respect to a person who is named several times in full in this thread.
The "basic respect" part is tricky. While getting this correct may imply more respect, it also reinforces the idea that the difference is relevant. For example, if she was identified as "Miss Jones" and you happened to know that she was married, does it merit a correction to point out that she is actually "Mrs. Jones" to show proper respect to her status as a married woman?
Hofstadter skewers this in one of this examples: "Ble conveniently sidesteps the fact that there is a tradition in our society of calling unemployed blacks 'Niss' and employed blacks 'Nrs.' Most blacks --- in fact, the vast majority ---prefer it that way. They want the world to know what their employment status is, and for good reason. Unemployed blacks want prospective employers to know they are available, without having to ask embarrassing questions. Likewise, employed blacks are proud of having found a job, and wish to let the world know they are employed."
I don't have an answer, but thought you might enjoy thinking about the issue in the context of Hofstadter's article.
In Hoftstadter's scenario, assume that that PJ had been misidentified as the "author" of the piece. Would it be a good impulse to correct the mistake and point out that she is actually an "authoroon"? I take Hofstadter to be arguing that rather than being more precise with our he's and she's, we need to move beyond them.
