[overgard]

Well; it would take more than anecdotal evidence for one thing. It's very easy for sensitive issues to be dominated by emotional anecdotes, to the point where only group think is tolerated and any sort of valid challenge is labeled. I often wish as a community we could use Crocker's rules ( http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Crocker%27s_rules ) for this kind of thing. It would make for more interesting discussions.

Anyway, I don't think people pick apart these blog posts because they're unwilling to accept there's a "gender bias" (whatever that actually means). Rather they pick these posts apart because there are very obvious holes in the original posts' reasoning. In this case, it's that because some guy was vaguely an overcompetitive jerk, somehow that means we need to isolate the sexes. Because apparently women are incapable of being overcompetitive jerks, and it (obviously) has to be a male/female dynamic.

That's kind of a leap!

Here's the other thing, and this is kind of a tangent, but a theme I see with a lot of these blog posts isn't that someone was actively hostile, but rather, that someone did something "offensive". With "offensive" ranging from things that are obviously very unprofessional to incredibly tame things that someone just didn't like. And to that I'd just say this: its your choice to be offended by things. And its your choice how you react to that. I've been "offended" by many things other programmers have said, but I don't go "well programming isn't for me!". I just think less of those people. I don't think female sensibilities are so frail that they aren't by and large the same way.

[whateverer]

That was hilarious, man. Thanks for that.

Oh, wait, it was serious?!

Well now, how are you going to map this issue to something which isn't, in the end, anecdotes, since it pertains to human emotional responses? Are you asking those ethereal (probably fake, as you said, who even knows what this gender bias thing means?) other people to come up with a scale where they have to put it in 1-to-ten how belittled they felt?

Have you stopped to think of why these kinds of posts are held up to such scrutiny in contrast to, say, posts about other, not-related to gender, and thus mostly affecting men (this last point shouldn't need explanation), matters? Like, bad experiences with VCs or age discrimination and some such?

I would hazard a guess that the distinction is not due to something very rational, unless you get very cynical and paranoid.

Anyway...

> Because apparently women are incapable of being overcompetitive jerks, and it (obviously) has to be a male/female dynamic.

It sort of is if its impact is mostly on women, and the behavior is mostly accused on men. Yes, this last point would require something more akin to actual statistics to be turned into the reason for some sort of castigation on men in general, but I haven't seen any of that as of now, really. Unless you count people feeling personally attacked by the existence of this discussion, of course.

> Here's the other thing, and this is kind of a tangent, but a theme I see with a lot of these blog posts isn't that someone was actively hostile, but rather, that someone did something "offensive". [...]

Well, we are quite glad that none of these problems affect you, but this conversation wasn't about you in particular, was it?