[erikpukinskis]

What is sexist is that I think many people have not actually invested the energy in figuring out what the distribution of X, Y, and Z are. I think X is actually much more common in this kind of scenario than Y or Z, and honestly I think anyone who has actually gained the trust of a few women in tech and heard stories about what it is like is pretty likely to see that too.

Anyone who throws their hands up and says "well I guess X, Y, and Z are equally probable" to me clearly has not actually spent time understanding the problem.

[derefr]

You're doing exactly the thing people-who-are-oft-scapegoated are afraid of: equating "extremely probable" with "incontrovertibly proven."

In an actual trial, for a conviction to take place, evidence would have to be presented that leaves no room for reasonable doubt--which is to say, the evidence would have to effectively take Y/Z/etc. out of consideration.

We chose this standard because we, as a society, decided that there was something more important than making sure "justice is served" in all cases: making sure nobody has the power to condemn innocents at a whim by making up an "extremely probable" accusation.

But the court of public opinion has no such strict standard, even though the punishments it hands out can be far worse.

[erikpukinskis]

No, probable is probable. I'm happy to talk about unlikely corner cases, in an appropriate sidebar. I think anyone pushing them as a primary talking point has their priorities misaligned and is tilting at windmills.