They are usually shared under the title of “preprint” or “draft” often, but not always, before the time of actual publishing.
Always seemed like a grey area to me. We didn’t really distribute the copy of the paper with the journal/conference’s name + copyright - though a perhaps a line under the title: “To be published in…”
Why shouldn't the word "male" have moderate female bias? It depends on the contexts in which it appears across the corpus.
As a biological sex, I can think of numerous ways it will co-occur with "feminine" words - the first few sentences of the Wikipedia entry for "Male" being a good example:
"A male gamete can fuse with a larger female gamete, or ovum, in the process of fertilization. A male cannot reproduce sexually without access to at least one ovum from a female, but some organisms can reproduce both sexually and asexually."
This demo shows gender bias, which as a concept is deep-rooted in most if not all natural languages. Consequently, it may be more accurate to say the word "male" is tips the scale towards "feminine" or "womanly" rather than "masculine" or "manly".
The author used Tinder as an example of “signal amplification”, in that, a method to reach more people.
So the signalling on Tinder is your profile - pictures and description, they monetise the ability to signal to more people. And, as you alluded to, they absolutely don’t make that action public since amplifying your signal on a dating app reeks of desperation.
Always seemed like a grey area to me. We didn’t really distribute the copy of the paper with the journal/conference’s name + copyright - though a perhaps a line under the title: “To be published in…”