I have edited my post in order to please the displeased. I hope that, as it is, the right to expose my experience is now taken in:
I grew up in Santiago de Chile and Great Britain. I am a native Spanish speaker. Never in my childhood I was taught that neutral substantives could be masculine or feminine as well. They were either neutral or not, but not both, since something can't exist in two places at the same time. These inconsistencies were not used by well spoken people in Chile, and if that changed, it is because of the media pressing for it. It is a clear representation of how, in the society we live in now, it is OK to change your mind about something every day; it seems to be OK for the vast majority to be inconsistent, and moving through without solid foundations and immutable principles.
The term 'lideresa', for instance, I found it quite used and accepted during the time I lived in Mexico, but it was not something you could get away with in Chile without someone giving you an awkward look. We mustn't forget here that there has been, and there are, massive influences in the language spoken in some countries, coming from third countries. The perfect example here is Chile and Mexico/Spain. Many Chilean politicians were in exile in Mexico/Spain, got infused with Mexicanism/Spanish-isms and brought these back to Chile, naturally influencing the media and their social circle. An even stronger influence takes place from the hand of the Mexican tv series which every day get to be watched by the average Chilean, the latter inevitably ending up transculturalised day after day. These are also Governmental decisions because, even when the Chilean administration choose not to, they could perfectly enforce the transmission of material mainly spoken or dubbed by Chilean-based artists. As we see, political decisions have a lot to do with the way we end up transforming, manifesting and experiencing our language and culture all over the world. It is important to understand such decisions are not a collective work and as such, unfortunately, are taken only by a few.
The 'presidente de Argentina' (as 2015), herself, said she wanted to be addressed as 'presidenta'. Some did not agree, nevertheless, who are the general media to say no to that request? We know the result. Please do not confuse my statement; do not deem it a political view! I am attempting to illustrate the degree of power an administration has over the official and public usage of a language, in the end affecting us all. Just as rulers through history have even changed the religion of a country in order to achieve their own agendas. 'La presidente de Chile', Michele Bachelet, through permanent and oficial comunications, overriding the neutral/generic term stated in the Chilean constitution, which refers to 'Presidente', establishes her persona as 'La Presidenta de la República', which can be verified at the following source: 'Contacte con La presidenta' www.chileatiende.cl/servicios/ver/AA001'.
A good example of this are ministerial mandates. Keep in mind education of languages at school are directed by/through ministerial resolutions, a task of the government in place. You and I, learnt to use the language as a combination of social interaction and school studies and both imprint us forever. If the Ministry of Education wants you to refer to the 'president' as 'presidenta', include changes in the curriculum, modernisms, even remove certain previously accepted and taught matters, etc., you'll learn so at school, because teachers must comply with the government's educational resolutions. You can read further on how the educational curricula get periodically updated at the following sources provided, for instance, on the Ecuadorian Ministry of Education or the Argentinian Federal Council for Education.
If you disagree with this, it is perfectly fine, but don't make of your disagreement a motive to post false statements or trying to deny the undeniable. I am just providing true facts and not making a personal remark about how language is or should be learned, neither am I saying individuals in a society don't have free will or a personal choice at exercising their preferred way to speak. Government's educational curricula for language teaching, normally and in democracy, don't prevent society from self-determination when it comes to the act and ways of expression.