[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.