[Sacho]

That paper describes the opposite effect to what OP is claiming - women as a whole get their pull requests accepted more often than men. I just skimmed the paper, but there was a large amount of explanations offered as to why this might be the case(e.g. only more experienced women contribute, women are more "well-known", women are making smaller pull requests, etc, etc) and all the ones I skimmed were rejected by the data. While there is probably a meaningful explanation(with lots of cators) why women are more likely to be accepted than men, at the very least, the incredulous proposition that gnupg developers were rejecting 100% of "female" patches is not supported by this paper in any way.

[mijoharas]

The paper states that the acceptance rates are only higher when they are not identifiable as women

> However, women's acceptance rates are higher only when they are not identifiable as women

[Sacho]

Thanks, this is the relevant part of the paper for that claim:

> For outsiders, we see evidence for gender bias: women’s acceptance rates drop by 10.2% when their gender is identifiable, compared to when it is not (2(df= 1;n= 18;540) =131;p < :001). There is a smaller 5.7% drop for men (2(df= 1;n= 659;560) = 103;p <:001). Women have a higher acceptance rate of pull requests overall (as we reported earlier),but when they are outsiders and their gender is identifiable, they have a lower acceptance rate than men

Accepting arguendo that this is clear evidence of a gender bias, its effects are not as clearly pronounced as the tweet tries to imply they are.

[Latty]

Sure, except the author of the tweets also states that they believe this project in particular is a particularly bad outlier, with projects varying: https://twitter.com/isislovecruft/status/811510038166695937