My meaning is straightforward. I believe the post would not have been written in that way if the reviewer had been male, regardless of their technique.
The dismissive tone, combined with the nonsensical focus on gender are solid indicators. A generalization like "weak", "typical woman forehand" can't even begin to make sense. I know I would be taking a huge step up if I had the forehand of any number of women I've played with.
It is interesting, I wish statements like Bob's original post were pursued with the level of zeal you showed mine!
Jedi, that post is more like it dude. Now you explained and detailed your thoughts.
I disagree and agree with you on the majority of elite woman's FH (without looking at OP vids, I would say she is elite or near elite amateur, very good amateur minimum).
Big majority of elite amateur and above ladies offensive TT play is compared to offensive oriented males is closer to the table countering style with big emphasis on pace and placement as opposed to overwhelming spin or speed/spin with placement. There are big differences physically, and while many elite women can really strke the ball, their impact is mostly not well suited for H3 on top end, not to say none of them would prefer it, only a few can really use it well at top end offensively.
Having said that, I so totally agree with yu in that without even going deep into any of her vids, a player this class has a match-ready FH above my level (and you stated above your level, with the sme satisfaction if you had her FH)... I would CERTAINLY be upgraded if I had even HALF the difference of my level and her level of a "weak" FH... because I feel that even that "weak" FH is much more consistent, well placed, much higher quality and ready to keep attacking WAY over my current abiliities on FH given teh same ball she is striking (except maybe on slow opener heavy spin)... that is why I would be happy to have her kind of rally FH performance at even 1/2 the level of difference between her and I, which should be a significant gap.