Everybody wants (if their intentions can be fathomed at all) to change* the world to their own framework or stir thoughts in that direction, or even in the opposite direction as a sort of double-bluff to bring them the way they think needs to be followed...

It's the stories, the plots, the reader's reactions that count. Can that be controlled from the centre? As an editor or publisher one should often facilitate natural creative forces, rather than mould them. I certainly do that. Isn't that what literature should be about? Opening the spigot and seeing what flows out? The only control the editor should have is to ask the questions: is it a good story, will readers be changed or entertained by it, is it art, is it well written, is it politically incorrect, is your (the editor's) attention held? If not sufficient yeses to those questions, reject it. Don't fiddle with it. Go on to the next part of the fulsome gushing flow from the spigot. Don't waste your time on doubt. Be certain. Choose the story that initially is the story you want to publish. By trying to change it you may be changing it for the worse before some other editor has the chance to read it and decides it's greater than you ever thought.

Just on the gender issue, who knows what pseudonym hides what gender etc.? Intention can never be fathomed, only the result.

Life is full of many threads and gender is just one thread. Too complex to call.

========

*I agree with the ideal goals many have about writing fiction, except the premise that one should consciously strive to change the world towards one's own wants or points-of-view to achieve those goals. I agree that fiction should be art not profit. (If it is good art, profit should be a happy, inadvertent result). Fiction, by it nature, is not polemical or didactic. Not didactic either in the perception of its fairness of creation by the requisite sorts of writer or in the perception of the desired effects on the reader.