[zdragnar]

My point was that, without knowing the management's perspective, it's entirely possible that gender was merely a coincidence of having senior males available, and hiring junior females either because they were the best available or the company wanted to look diverse. Perhaps they were flagging and needed to cut the junior developers so the senior developers could focus on getting back on track.

Either way, it's impossible to know, because without more details all we are left with is the agenda of an author who isn't interested in presenting the truth (or providing sufficient evidence to support it).

Edit: consider the following scenario: you have a team of male developerd; maybe they were friends when they pitched the idea for a product to you. After a few months, there's a big backlog, and they want to hire junior developers to train and take off some of the pressure. To embrace diversity, you hire a bunch of women who recently graduated from a boot camp to round out your all white male staff.

Fast forward a year. Everyone has become a tight knit team, but the pressure to deliver mounts. Instead of getting faster, they're all bogged down with refactors and endless pull request revisions of things that aren't working out. You are running out of money, so you decide to cut the junior developers, and try to bribe the senior devs with some of the cost savings to make up for all the extra hours they'll now be working. Uh oh! You're only firing the women! They all band together, oblivious to the fact that you literally won't be able to keep them all on.

I'm not saying this is what happened. What happened could have been pure sexism and anti-labor mentality. BUT pushing such an agenda without KNOWING that is the case here doesn't do anyone any favors.

[2bitmachine]

I guess I’m not sure why we’re to believe that your perspective on the situation is somehow more valid or absent a similar “agenda” you ascribe to the journalist. The journalist spoke to the people involved who described their motivations (which sure seems to be at least partially informed by perceived sexism), while you’re just making speculative assertions about “management’s perspective.” And because management seemingly handled the situation so poorly and in violation of labor laws, it’s not like they’re going to go on the record anyway...

[zdragnar]

that's the point; it isn't at all. It is, in fact, pure speculation based on information that is missing from the article.

The fact that the article is missing such important information could be because it's not available, or it might not fit the author's agenda.

The company is very clearly in the wrong here; I'm taking issue with the heavy handedness of forcing gender into a story that, based on the evidence presented, could easily be a clear cut labor issue.

[2bitmachine]

It’s not pure speculation- it’s the worker’s side of the story. You can’t discredit their experience because the other side behaved in such a brazenly stupid fashion that they’re probably being advised to not speak to the press at all. Even if management’s perspective was included in the article, corresponded to your framing, the same would hold true. Your skepticism isn’t really skepticism when it leans consistently in favor of one party or the other.

[zdragnar]

What is there to be skeptical about regarding the management? We know nothing about their motives, only a few facts. Without the remaining facts, or their perspective, there's nothing to be skeptical about.

I've tried to be clear that I'm open to the possibility that this really is about sexism. I don't think that exclusively presenting one side of the story will lead us to the truth, though.