At the end of the article, the author talks about how this is just harassment and that it's not necessarily sexual.

> Tech harassment — and harassment in general — isn’t just sexual. Sometimes it’s stalking. Sometimes it’s bullying. Sometimes it’s intimidation. I know too many people who’ve been impacted by workplace harassment related to their gender, sexual orientation, appearance, race, and more. No matter what form harassment takes, and no matter where it happens, we need to do better.

The only time where she's frustrated about sexism taking place is when she brings up how her opinion was discarded by this rude team member:

> As project leader, I worked hard to keep us on track, but he veered off course: obsessing over winning, arguing irrelevant details, and challenging everything. When male mentors stepped in and unknowingly made suggestions identical to mine, Mark instantly flipped to agreement.

Nowhere does the author claim this was sexual harassment, simply that it was harassment. It uses the word "sexism" once, and "sexist" twice, in both cases referring to the condescending response of mentors and others to her complaints about this person.

> At what point does the line blur between needing special treatment because you're a different gender and equality?

Well, as I read this piece she's describing potentially abusive behavior, but not gender related. I read it as a shitstorm of over-intense personalities with optimistic dreams of being the next big thing creating an awful environment for eachother. Somebody of either gender could have a bitter ex-teammate who wants to undercut them.

So I read this as a criticism of the atmosphere of hackathons rather than a women-in-tech issue.

Now, the philosophical question is whether this distinction means I agree or disagree with the author.

It isn't claiming to be sexual Harassment, but Harassment in general. This story would be equally awful it it happened to a man. However, a man wouldn't have to think about his personal safety as much by attending the event they won. So the result of the Harassment plays out differently for each gender.

> a man wouldn't have to think about his personal safety as much by attending the event they won

This is a part I'm not sure to understand. You were supposed to hold a booth in a summit, which I assume was in a public setting. Surely, this should have been a serious deterrent on any physical assault. If despite this your partner started threatening you, wouldn't it have been possible to get the security to step in?

> a man wouldn't have to think about his personal safety as much by attending the event they won.

Can you elaborate?

A man generally is not at the same disadvantage physically should someone decide to attack or overpower them. Even if things were uncomfortable they could reasonably expect to defend themselves.

<deleted, because a sibling commenter asked the same question, word for word>