I agree with [tchrist said](http://meta.english.stackexchange.com/a/5306/96603) in regards to why the answer has so many upvotes, especially this bit:

> I would not be surprised if the votes came from people strongly agreeing with the sentiments expressed by the poster.

Which is to say: I believe that it is so highly upvoted because, even though the website itself is for linguists, etymologists, and serious enthusiasts, users have all sorts of backgrounds. This answer is not being upvoted for its merit as an answer, it's being upvoted because it addresses the question asked for its perceived intentions, rather than answering it. 

To be more specific: the answer **presumes that the question has a hidden political agenda** (which I also fail to find). And the user answering has a clear problem with the political agenda they perceive, whether or not it is there. And so does the SE community.

In support of this theory, I offer that tchrist's answer makes, more openly, the same assumption:

> All this over-sensitivity about non-existent issues smacks of political correctness gone mad, like people are just looking for something to complain about (…) being told how you can or cannot talk really rubs people the wrong way!
> 
> This is especially galling when it’s making stuff out of thin air as appears to be the case here, but even if it weren’t, it would still vex.

Let's roll the clock back a bit. The question at hand is:

>It's straightforward to refer to a "craftsperson" instead of a "craftsman" if one doesn't want to imply a gender. But "craftspersonship", "sportspersonship", and the like seem pretty cumbersome. Is there a more elegant alternative?

I fail to see anything accusatory in it, it's not proposing that this word be banned or that people use a different one and it's not complaining about anything. So I also fail to see why tchrist thinks it "smacks of political correctness gone mad".

I agree entirely with your interpretation of the answer. It *is* derisive in presuming that the person wants a gender-neutral alternative because they feel "craftsmanship" is not gender-neutral on its own. It bashes at people who disagree with his view  ("People who think it is not should take it up with themselves, not the word"). It assumes the poster "sees discrimination where there is none", while none of this is said in the question.

The answer ignores completely the question and addresses what the user who offered it *thinks* the context is. They don't care if the author of the question wanted a word that a feminist character in a book might prefer. They are more interested in lashing out on people who might prefer it for political reasons.

In fact, the answer is ridiculous if you ignore the political agenda it forces on the question. The question doesn't even explicitly state that "craftsmanship" is not gender-neutral, it merely asks for an *alternative* that is. While the use of the word "alternative" might arguably imply this, 

In a different SE community, such as the cooking one, it might have gone as this:

> **Vegetarian alternative for margarine?**
> 
> It's straightforward to use margarine instead of butter if one doesn't want to consume animal products. But for frying, risotto and the like, margarine doesn't add to the flavour. Is there a more flavourful alternative?

And the answer in question would be:

> Yes, there is: realizing that margarine is vegetarian. People who think it is not should take it up with themselves, not the food.

> If I see animal products where there is none, the root of the problem is myself and not the food. It is also a textbook example of not reading the label.

> Margarine has animal products about as much as lettuce does.

I hope this parody sounds absurd, because this is exactly the level of absurdity I see in the answer posted.

In my opinion, the answer is very poor, because besides being outright belittling and aggressive, it fails to answer the question (as it *doesn't present an alternative*) and doesn't provide any form of justification for the opinion presented. It would be perfectly fine to answer something like:

> According to the Oxford dictionary, the word "[artisanship](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/artisanship)" conveys the same meaning as "[craftsmanship](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/craftsmanship)". Please note, however, that even though "craftsmanship" doesn't appear to be gender-neutral, it in fact is, according to [insert reference here].

The unprovoked aggressiveness of the answer, the unwavering support for it, despite the utter lack of quality (no matter whatever merits the user who posted it has) and the dimension of the reaction to this question lead me to one conclusion: none of this have nothing to do with the question. The question itself is, paraphrasing [a comment](http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/205282/gender-neutral-alternative-to-craftsmanship#comment436576_205282), the windmill that several senile Spanish knights were looking for in this website.

I would also paraphrase the infamous answer by saying that there is *nothing* in the question that justifies such extreme reactions. People who think there is should take it up with themselves, not the question. If one sees political agenda where there is none, the problem is in oneself. I will, however, do no such paraphrase, as I haven't amassed enough internet-kudos to make this type of outburst acceptable.