Not trying to falsify claims of sexism for the fun of it. We agree the PWs fucked up their relationship with Julie and the resulting investigation proves exactly that. She was right, agreed. But that's not the full claim—it's two-pronged. Are you asking that we do not verify the authenticity of the sexism claim and bulk it's truthiness together with the former?

I agree -- there's no problem with someone claiming a specific individual acted in a way that was unprofessional, and it's certainly a believable claim worth investigating. Turns out that was the case here.

Where things jumped the shark is where men watching women voluntarily hoola hooping at a company event triggered an industry-wide freak out about sexism through the magic of blogs and twitter. (With Valleywag et al laughing all the way to the bank.)

My questions about the public rendition of the hula hoop has large gone unattended to. (I know, I am unpopular.) I reiterate, yet again: 1. Were the ladies aware the had the gentlemen's attention ("gawking" as Julie called it)? 2. If answer to (1) is no, did they ever notice they had an audience? 3. If answer to (1) or (2) is yes, what was their reaction: stopped or continued?

yes, if someone is distressed then of course the proper action is to try to figure out how to alleviate that.

the point about falsifiability comes in when that distressed person makes widely communicated public accusations about the conduct of not just individuals but an entire company and in this case due to the environment of paranoia about sexism an entire industry. if you are going to make claims about systemic gender discrimination then you are opening yourself up to criticism and the need to provide evidence.