[Blahah]

Yes, no evidence at all in this anecdote. There could have been any number of reasons why the guy decided to back out of the job at that stage, including the one he gave. Assuming it was due to sexism is just a wild guess. The fact that he negotiated with the male founder could be explained by any of the other factors involved, like the better job title offered, the increased salary offered, or the (given) reason that the author just didn't inspire confidence in the hire.

It's not at all suggestive of gender bias. Just because something happens to a woman, does not indicate in any way that the thing happened to her because she's a woman (unless it's something that couldn't have happened to a man).

I completely agree that there is evidence that the glass ceiling exists, and there is ample evidence of a strong gender bias in society at large that is amplified in certain industries. If you re-read my original comment I didn't dispute that. All I'm saying is that her anecdote is not evidence that she was hitting the glass ceiling.

[antimagic]

You didn't answer my question - what evidence would you accept?

[Blahah]

You didn't ask that question - I thought your similar question was rhetorical since you answered it yourself. I agree with your evidence that a glass ceiling exists.

If you want to know what evidence I would accept to put this case down to gender discrimination, then any positive indicator not itself based on discrimination. I can't imagine all the possible forms that could take.

edit: on re-reading I see where you wondered about it. The guy coming out and saying it would be evidence, and it's true that even if it were gender discrimination, it might not be at all obvious. That doesn't make it rational to decide that it was gender discrimination when no evidence was given.

[antimagic]

No, give me a (some) specific example - you know "If I saw XXX, I would know that there was a glass-ceiling in place". My request is not spurious - anyone that has ever tried to talk about these issues in public gets hit with comments like yours "That's not evidence of discrimination". And each time, on the surface, you're right, you could construct a different interpretation of the events. Nevertheless, when we look at the global situation, you and I agree that our world looks like one in which discrimination exists. Once you accept that as a fact, the onus of proof shifts somewhat in the direction of the person claiming that discrimination wasn't the cause.