I wonder how much is lost in such an attempt. For instance, as was pointed out, developing a team is not the same as managing a team. A company could lose a good applicant who isn’t interested in developing a team but is happy to manage, or conversely lose someone who wants to develop their own team but learns that isn’t actually going to happen.
Managing is developing a team. Even if the team is given to you, you will develop them - you will guide them in growing their skills and competencies. You will mentor them for more challenging roles. You will work with management to get them assignments that are interesting and challenging. You will fight for their raises and promotions and the budget that is needed for them to do their jobs. If you aren’t developing the people who work for you, you are a piss poor manager.
And I suspect that is the difference. Women want to work for a company in management that understanding that developing and managing are the same. If you want me to come in and check metrics and budgets and once a year hand out a 2.5% cost of living increase - while taking credit for the work the team does - not interested. If you want me to say that the guy who was my intern is now the IT portfolio manager for a major healthcare system, and the guy who worked for me as a sys admin is now the CISO for a utility company (both true), I’m your girl.
That’s quite the sweeping statement.
While it’s true that competent managing includes development, I personally would read “develop a team” as building one from scratch, or nearly so. So, if an applicant goes into an interview expecting that and learns that the job is actually replacing the last manager who left, won’t some applicants decide the job is not of interest? And the company has now spent time and money interviewing someone who may not have applied if the specifics were made clear in the advert, while possibly missing out on a good candidate because they only wanted to interview so many people initially.
Come on, this is all nonsense. No one is applying or not applying to a job based on whether the advert says develop or manage. I don’t even need to look to know what these studies are like. A small measured effect with a dubious p-value based on what random grad students say about the job advertisements. The results are then pumped up by people with things to sell and writers looking for eyeballs.
Hey, you don’t have to work very hard to get me to agree that most social science studies are of dubious value and poor reproducibility. But I think there is a discussion that can be had on the effects attempts of inclusivity can have on clarity (and vice-versa) and the possibility that in attempts at one, no matter how well intentioned, can have unintended consequences on the other.
Did you guys even read the article?
So, research has shown that there are word choices in advertisements that have an impact on whether or not women apply for the jobs advertised. Someone is providing a service for those who want to see more women applicants, analyzing their word choices and offering suggestions.
In no way is this about sexist words, nor is it about gendered words. Your questions are non sequiturs that have almost nothing to do with the content of the article. Though to be fair the OP kind of mixes it up as well.
Not deliberately but it is about words being seen as sexist.
Something being more or less appealing to men or women does not make it sexist.
You’re inferring something different from that quote than I am. It makes sense that if you write a job ad that is written in a manner that is inaccessible to a wide audience, you’ll only attract a certain type of person. Most probably, this type of person will be highly similar to the person who wrote the ad; after all, they speak the same “language”. If you don’t speak that language and speaking this language is not a requirement to do an effective job, then you’ll needlessly turn off qualified talent by not writing a job ad that is accessible to a diverse candidate pool.
I disagree. Changing the (male/female) target market is definitely sexism. Inadvertent in the cases the article cites, sure, but sexism nonetheless.
Changing "manage’ to ‘develop’ is stupid. At a former company, they actually were two different roles.
Developing a team meant that you were assigned to work with employees ranging from a new hire up to two years of service.
Managing a team meant that you’re going to be assigned to a group of employees with at least two years of service, but often up to twenty years.
It’s a different skill set and personality type
Womynager, I guess. 
Reading the descriptions, I’m not completely convinced that this is so much a male/female thing as that the rewritten listings obfuscate the job enough that people apply simply because they don’t realize that - for example - it’s a management position. It’s plausible that the women are ruling themselves out of the position based on a belief that they aren’t qualified or wanted as a manager, more than that they don’t like the word “manager”.
If this is largely a matter of obfuscation, then we would expect the total number of applicants to grow, even on the male side of things, and the average qualifications rate to go down among applicants.