A compelling argument for what? I think they have the right to be sexist. I just think it's crazy to try and brand it as something else. Just be honest.
The evidence of their behavior suggests it's not branding or dishonesty: they genuinely believe a mission to increase representation of the underrepresented gender does not constitute sexism. Given that, are any reasons for them to hold such a meaning of sexism, other than being "crazy"?
Men are a majority in tech with many benefits. Women are a minority in tech with many obstacles. They're just trying to help these women overcome this disparity. Why discourage that?
He didn't try to discourage them. He accurately labelled the behavior as sexist.
In a post-donglegate world where we must be forced to examine the sexual connotations of everything we do and say it shouldn't surprise that hackers callously analyze the entire situation.
Yes. It's sexist. Just like affirmative action is racist[1]. People tend to think that using sexism/racism this way counterbalances the other side of it, forcefully, for a time, until it's not necessary.
I'm not disagreeing with those kinds of practices or speaking ill of those who support them. But they are what they are, technically speaking. (The best kind of speaking).
[1] I find it amusing that the wikipedia article on affirmative action helpfully reminds us that the practice is known as "positive discrimination" in the UK. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action
The systems in which we're living are still suffering from the effects of centuries of sexism. Reciprocal sexism is only used to counterbalance these effects.