[dragonwriter]

> If people were mocking him - more men would be mocking him for the second statement that they are "irresistible" to women

The offensive part that is being mocked was not the description that women fall in love with men or vice versa.

The offensive part was that both of those were described by Hunt as parts of his "problem with girls...when they are in the lab".

That is, Hunt says:

1. Women fall in love with men (implicitly, to the detriment of the function of the lab) => problem with women

2. Men fall in love with women (implicitly, to the detriment of the function of the lab) => problem with women

[Lawtonfogle]

It would've been much better of him to express this as a problem with coed workplaces instead of making the issue the fault of either particular gender. The question is thus did he mean coed workplaces and just completely failed at expressing his intention or was his intention to be sexist.

[Nadya]

>"problem with girls...when they are in the lab".

This can be read two ways depending how you parse it.

That is, Hunt says:

1. Women fall in love with men (implicitly, to the detriment of the function of the lab) => problem with coed labs

2. Men fall in love with women (implicitly, to the detriment of the function of the lab) => problem with coed labs

[dragonwriter]

Your reading of "the problem with girls...when they are in the lab" requires the sexist assumption that the default state of labs is to include males, such that that a "problem with coed labs" is a "problem with girls...when they are in the lab", because, obviously, there's always going to be men in a lab.

So, either reading is sexist, though it is true that there are different ways in which it can be sexist.