This wasn't an attack on "men" it was an attack on a specific man and yes, it was totally outrageous.

Women don't need thicker skin. No man or woman should be criticized for how they dress.

You didn't even read what the Petrie multiplier is, making your whole post a straw man attack.

Is it really that much of a burden not to be sexist or racist? The obliviousness I see in this supposedly enlightened industry astounds me.

you probably didn't read what Petrie multiplier is - it clearly explains why heavily disbalanced industry like hi-tech consisting of practically non-sexist/non-racist Jesus-es would feel like sexist and racist environment by the corresponding minorities. Onus is on you to show that people in the industry are actually sexist and racist - according to Petrie multiplier, minorities feeling bad isn't enough to conclude that the majority consists of sexist and racist people.

You misunderstood what the Petrie multiplier is. It assumes equal non-zero racism/sexism/minorityism. It doesn't matter whether it is a majority. I posit to you that there is no reason why it shouldn't be zero.

>You misunderstood what the Petrie multiplier is. It assumes equal non-zero racism/sexism/minorityism.

misunderstanding is all yours. Equal sexism results in worse experience by the members of minority. Equal experience would necessarily require lower sexism displayed by the members of the majority - read the Petrie multiplier post again if you don't understand that statement. Thus push for equal experience in a male dominated environment is an equivalent of push for the males in that environment to display lower sexism than the women in the same environment. In other words it is an "attack on men".

>I posit to you that there is no reason why it shouldn't be zero.

And there is no reason why people shouldn't violate red light. In theory. They do it in practice.