So, most people with good social radar are not going to be able to readily give the precise, data-driven explanations that the HN crowd values so highly. But the reason I suspect Jessica is being dismissed based in part on her gender, rather than the hand-wavey nature of her assertions, is because of the framing of the criticism she is getting. As I said earlier, a lot of the comments here do not boil down to "please, show your work and prove you are right." They boil down "Oh, you are full of shit and no one can know that and, god, my respect for YC just plummeted" as if she had confessed that her method for deciding who to accept involved casting their horoscope or consulting a psychic.

When I first joined HN, the top three people here all had about 50k karma and there was a much more collegial environment than currently exists. I was never given access to that collegial environment. I never got a mix of some acknowledgement that I might have a point and some criticism that not everyone agreed with me and the opportunity to state why I thought x, y or z. Instead, men on the leaderboard closed ranks. For a long time, if I said anything, you could bet dollars to donuts that two different people (not the same ones every time) from the leaderboard would chime in to announce how wrong I was.

It took me literally years to figure out that this was going on in part because, for a woman, I had a high amount of karma and I was, thus, rocking the boat. Initially, I had no idea because, at the time, my karma was so far off from qualifying for a bottom rung on the leaderboard that I figured I was a Nobody and no one should be noticing me at all. However, I was able to infer (based on that social indicators in the way people reacted to me, in spite of the lack of hard data – in other words, “social radar”) that I was apparently prominent for a woman, in spite of my pathetically low amount of karma. Eventually, I was able to dig up real data proving that fairly firmly (in spite of the limits on the data available to me). Once I understood the position I was in, I was able to quit attracting so much damning attention.

So what I am telling you is that a) Hacker News has deteriorated in some ways generally, which has hurt the experience of most members and I would like to see the bar raised such that the collegial environment returns generally and b) I would like women included in that respectful debate of ideas in a way I do not believe they have been previously included. And one way you can help achieve that, if you so desire, is to change the manner in which you criticize women and their "hand-wavey" attempts to express themselves.

One thing that would really, really help a whole lot is make damn sure you understand that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." In other words, just because women are generally going to not be good at defending their positions on terms that the men here will readily accept does not, by itself, prove they are wrong. Just because the explanation is hand-wavey does not mean she is full of shit. Ask better questions. Encourage women to get the data that backs up their position. If they can't immediately do so, genuinely "agree to disagree" instead of pissing on them like they aren't worthy of any respect. Give women an opportunity to grow into the ability to communicate in more precise terms and learn to effectively back up their statements. Because shooting them down and pissing on them is not something that will ever help women up their game and learn to go toe-to-toe with the big boys. It merely excludes them.

And thank you for reading my blog post and engaging me in good faith.

I do however vehemently disagree with this: "In other words, just because women are generally going to not be good at defending their positions on terms that the men here will readily accept does not, by itself, prove they are wrong." I think here you are in fact buying into gender stereotypes and doing women a disservice. Some women can be and are just as analytical as men and some men can be and are just as strong with the soft skill stuff as women. To start thinking of these things in terms of gender just perpetuates the status quo. If anything, YCombinator itself is doing that very thing, with the three men as the analytical ones judging the tech and Jessica, as the woman, as the soft skills person. It's quite possible that it's just a coincidence it worked out that way and they all seem to be happy with those roles, but isn't it a little bit fishy that their roles line up with gender stereotypes so neatly?

I do however vehemently disagree with this: "In other words, just because women are generally going to not be good at defending their positions on terms that the men here will readily accept does not, by itself, prove they are wrong."

I apologize if it sounded like I was promoting gender stereotypes. I have my own personal biases that do sometimes come out that way. But let me be clear: My intent was to make the point that women are often ganged up and dismissed in a way that is toxic and really hard to cope with at all, much less argue effectively in the face of. So, given the degree to which women are underrepresented in STEM and on HN, I think a reasonable assumption is that most women here will have a certain lack of experience of effectively going toe-to-toe with the big dogs. It would be nice if the big dogs did not try to eat their lunch and, instead, engaged in some basic respect for boundaries while women try to get their sea legs as HN gradually changes to become more female-friendly.

I don't hesitate to debate with anyone here. For a long time, it really made my experience here miserable in a way that did not seem typical for what was happening with men who engaged in debate. I think the collegial environment that existed at that time, from which I was largely excluded, has deteriorated some, thus harming the experience for everyone. I would like to see the general atmosphere here improve to something more akin to what it was when I originally joined. But I would like to see it not reserved for the men this time around. I would like it to be a more inclusive environment.

So let me attempt to reframe that as: If a member here happens to not be good at defending their position, regardless of who they are, that shouldn't be reason to simply be dismissive of them or make them look stupid. It is a good general rule of thumb. If it is actually applied consistently, it will help level the playing field so women aren't facing such an uphill battle.

Edit:

As for making you feel unjustly attacked, I will note that my original reply to you was this one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9147934 You opted to not respond at all to my assertion that people can tell such things. You just kept arguing that there isn't enough data, the example offered you by paul was not sufficient and so on. So, in the context of the general atmosphere, that began to look to me like, no, your inquiry wasn't really about "So, how do you know?" Instead, it was a polite way to be dismissive -- that when push comes to shove, "la la la not listening -- no amount of data will ever be enough." You seem to not be giving much credence to the things that are being said in support of what she said.

So that is where my parent comment of this particular discussion came from in asking why you are being so dismissive.

I do understand that it is often more engaging to argue with people where you disagree and that there can be a lot of non-sexist factors influencing your choice as to what to reply to in this discussion. But having been on HN a number of years, I have seen this far too often where I ever so politely have my character assassinated in ways that would make me look like a lunatic to protest it. It's really maddening. So the context and pattern of behavior here matter. I mention that since you seem genuinely interested in understanding how to do this better.

Take care.