I think the real issue is that no one (including the author) is obeying the issue #9 "Stereotyping women’s needs". That's what the author is doing, that's what all these guys feeling bad for putting out "microagressions" are doing. Unless you are a women in tech then you can't speak for any women in tech and even if you are, you can only speak for one women in tech, yourself.

Some women might be offended by saying "guys" but some others might feel that it's a term of endearment (as it is probably intended) and they might feel saying "men and women" is silly. But I don't know, because I'm a dude.

What I do know is that every single successful person puts up with crap. That crap is often months of working on a project with a manager you dislike or putting in extra time to get things done when you'd rather be sitting around eating Cheetos. Work is a constant struggle and if you're throwing in the towel on your passion because someone called something sexy, then you clearly weren't meant to work with people, let alone in tech.

Agree with: "Unless you are a women in tech then you can't speak for any women in tech and even if you are, you can only speak for one women in tech, yourself." "What I do know is that every single successful person puts up with crap."

Disagree with implied ideas that: because we can all only speak for ourselves, we shouldn't speak. Because everyone gets crap, we don't need to fight against shit. That guys feeling bad for microaggressions are stereotyping women's needs (?).

We're all jerks sometimes, and often we don't even know it. When we realize we did something that made someone else feel bad, it's natural to feel defensive and at the same time sorry. It's not stereotyping to listen honestly to someone's viewpoint and consider it. And not having time to eat Cheetos is not what women are facing, it's weird stuff like the boss never inviting them to beer or getting sexually explicit trolling. You've read the news; you know what's in the harassment lawsuits: retaliation for sexual relationships had or not had, promotions denied because of "fit", networking events that were male-only, and all the guys in the company going along. If a guy had practice saying, "Hey, let's not call that app sexy and then ask if grandma can use it," he might actually have the practice and the courage to stand up to some of this serious stuff.

To your point, everything you mention about things in the news are significant issues. However, they are not small slips by good natured men. Those are bad people actively discriminating against people they deem unworthy.

That being said, I didn't say we shouldn't speak. I said we shouldn't speak for others. This article wasn't written as "here's how I feel when this happens" it was "here's how women feel when you do this". Generalizing in this way is just as sexist as any of the issues she brings up, if not more so, but because she wraps her sexism in good intentions we ignore it.

It's hard to qualify disliking certain adjectives as worse "shit" then anything else you have to go through as a professional. We're specifically talking about microagressions here, not firing someone for not sleeping with you, not excluding women from events, etc. These are not major issues, they are small things that make some people uncomfortable.

I understand it can suck when a company's culture doesn't fit, I deal with a fair share of bad culture fit as I consultant for many companies. I'm a 20yo male bisexual who doesn't drink or smoke. I just spent time with a company where the entire staff went to the bar and I wasn't just invited, but pressured to go and I felt very outside when I had to repeatedly refuse. I had a different client make unwarranted comments about us cuddling and he brought up multiple times who would be the big spoon (I'm unsure if he knew my orientation, I suspect he did). I later had a very negative falling out with him, was it because I ignored his advances? Who knows. My point is that we're all different and you're extremely unlikely to mesh perfectly with every member of a group, but being successful often means putting aside these things and doing business regardless. It sucks, but it's an issue that will always exist and isn't exclusive to women. It's not called work because it's super fun, it's called work because you put up with crap and all these "microaggressions" are on the level of all this other crap.

To your final disagreement about me saying that men feeling bad are stereotyping women's needs/issues, imagine you take what I've just told you about me and imagine we're hanging out one night and we're quite close, so you want to share some story about your sexual exploits from the night before. You start to tell your story but then think "well, he's bisexual, I probably shouldn't tell him this story because he's confused about his sexuality and trying to figure himself out". That's you stereotyping, obviously. It's no different than saying "she's a women, I shouldn't call this software sexy". If you knew me personally and I had said "don't talk about sex around me" then you would have grounds to think that. Similarly if I'm working with a women and she says "hey don't call me a guy" then I say okay and I don't do that anymore. But by assuming she'd be offended, I'm stereotyping.

The goal of communication isn't to make everyone feel great all the time, you shouldn't err on the side of inclusion, you should err on the side of openness, so if you say something that makes someone feel bad or out of place, they can say "hey bud, pls don't". By shuttering communication and wildly speculating about what all people of any group dislike or are offended by, you're belittling their individuality and overall moving communication in the wrong direction.

Your final paragraph is interesting, given the author's point here:

> Finally, this list is written for those who, like me, try to err on the side of being maximally-inclusive. Many of these things are common in our culture, and while I try to model good behavior, I don’t correct others’ usage unless they ask. I consider this an application of the robustness principle.

The author addressed the issue from the point of view of "Someone asked what things might marginalize, but not obviously so to the majority in the field", but many people have viewed the post as a line that others shouldn't cross. That's decidedly not the tone put forward.