I think commenters are trying to challenge her interpretation of events without critiquing her directly (individuals may or may not succeed).

I think the commenters who are doubting her interpretation mean well. They want to draw a very clear line around what is gender-related mistreatment, because if that line becomes unclear or logically inconsistent then that undercuts gender equality.

I think this is largely a good thing. It's too easy for people to automatically get swept up in emotions of an "us vs them" rather than analyze an issue the way a juror would.

Did you read the article? It uses the word "harassment" quite liberally, and belittles actual victims of harassment.

I did read the article and I think her interpretation of the events as harassment is not at all liberal, it's quite spot on. Initially I was questioning it, but as it went on and on... and on, it clearly fit well within the realm of a conservative definition of harassment.

Harassment doesn't necessarily mean sexual harassment.

No one thinks that it does, in fact "sexual harassment" hadn't even crossed my mind. But based purely on what the author wrote (which seems comprehensive, complete with emails), I don't see harassment.

Yes, people do. Here is one example.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15586109

Yes, and I'm not saying it does.

I'm saying the article has no example of actual harassment. There was no name calling, no threats, and no abusive behavior. All I see is a potentially socially-inept guy trying to communicate, and someone reading way too much into his emails (she kept claiming the "threats were insinuated," really?).

The email isn't supposed to be proof of some kind of creepy behavior but proof of an unwillingness to leave the project.