True, but if you look at the Muhammad Asad translation, which I find alot of female converts like reading, the footnote points to males and females having unique strengths. The question one has to ask is why do you believe that the classical exegetical work have more legitimacy than a later interpretation? if the person is happy with the modern interpretation - are they wrong? deluded? should understanding of the Qur'an be evolving or static?
I trust the classical scholars much more than the modernist liberal ones as they gave it to you straight. They knew the Arabic of the Qur'an very well, they were closer to the time of Muhammad and far more in tune with the mentality of that time. They didn't try to twist and change things to suit modern sensibilities.
Besides I can see for myself the utter nonesense many modern liberal scholars talk when they give ridiculous interpretations that contradict Arabic.
For example those who say Qur'an doesn't say "Hit" your wives but really says <insert absurd explanation of choice>. Muhammad Asad for example obviously didn't like the story in the Qur'an where the Jews were asked to solve a murder by killing a cow and slapping the dead body with a bit of it to bring it alive. So he came up with some unbelievably weak linguistic acrobatics to make it sound less silly.
Now I'm quite happy to see the Qur'an evolving and move away from the harsh and ridiculous doctrines of the past - and I wish them good luck - but to me it's just bullshit.
I mean they are taking the Qur'an - which is supposed to be Gods eternal word - and making it into something they want it to be - and still selling it as God's eternal word.
It's a bit emptying a Coke bottle and filling it up with Fanta - the label is still the same but that's about it!
And I can't help thinking why bother?
If one is going to follow one's inner instincts and own sense of what is right - why keep up the pretence that one is following the Divine and Eternal dictate of of the Qur'an?