Rowe herself says (https://libreboot.org/gnu/#leah-not-a-hero):
> The trans person who was fired, I had already lost as a friend, and was deeply upset at the time. I had started to say nasty things to this person, over a disagreement, which was also my fault. I thought that exposing the FSF for their discriminatory practises would redeem me and possibly make that person be my friend again.
She got in a fight with a friend, accused the FSF of misdeeds partly in hopes of winning that friend back, and outed a person who did not want to be outed. Between the parties involved and the circumstances, I'm inclined to give the FSF the benefit of the doubt. I am willing to be proven wrong! But until then, I see no reason whatsoever to believe those accusations.
In this case, I don't think it's quite a fair ask to unilaterally imply the existence of a troubling conflict, taking a moral position in the name of a different allegedly aggrieved party, force people to pick a side, then punish them for their choice. It seems many other people feel the same way, which they express in varying tones.
At this point, that's a big if.
In any case, I do a lot of gaming, so my perspective may be warped here, but I would blame Reddit's one-sidedness on KotakuInAction/GamerGate. After people like Anita Sarkeesian and that particular kerfuffle, anybody involved in that scene (even tangentially) is going to want very strong evidence before believing any claims of persecution (and if you feel like talking Anita and GamerGate themselves, rather than whether or not you think that it contributed to the atmosphere I'm describing, please don't. I don't want another flame war). Claims of persecution that I find rather improbable. The FSF, say what you will about them, have never been the sorts to persecute based on race and gender.
Note that this doesn't require that the people who fired her are bigots so to speak - you can fully empathise with someone and still decide that it's easier/cheaper for the company to fire them than to deal with the problem, and without strong worker protections, that's possibly a perfectly rational thing to do. The FSF isn't particularly special in regards to the rights of minority groups and I'd expect it to behave the same as many organisations of a similar size. But the result is an organisation which tends heavily towards discrimination against people outside the cultural norm (who're more likely to be targeted and harassed, and so cost additional time/money/risk to employ), and that's something some people feel quite strongly should be fought against.
Not saying it's the case, we all don't know, but if the accusations are right, it's absolutely reasonable to not want to work with these people. You can say all you want about being professional and not having politics influence your technical decisions, but that's easy to say if it's not your life style choices that are discriminated against.