> Nowhere did he say they were "distractingly sexy". He said men fall in love with women. That happens. He also said women fall in love with men.

Also, men fall in love with men, and women fall in love with women.

> It's very ironic they are crying on Twitter

Uh, "mocking" is very different from "crying".

>men fall in love with men, and women fall in love with women.

He didn't say that.

>Uh, "mocking" is very different from "crying".

With the above correction you've shown your political standing. Of course you see it as mockery. Most people are going to see it as them crying about his "sexism" over something he didn't actually say (that they were distractingly sexy).

If people were mocking him - more men would be mocking him for the second statement that they are "irresistible" to women and their bravado gets them all the ladies and they are having troubles working because of all the sex they are getting. But they aren't crying on Twitter because he said that women fall in love with them.

> If people were mocking him - more men would be mocking him for the second statement that they are "irresistible" to women

The offensive part that is being mocked was not the description that women fall in love with men or vice versa.

The offensive part was that both of those were described by Hunt as parts of his "problem with girls...when they are in the lab".

That is, Hunt says:

1. Women fall in love with men (implicitly, to the detriment of the function of the lab) => problem with women

2. Men fall in love with women (implicitly, to the detriment of the function of the lab) => problem with women

It would've been much better of him to express this as a problem with coed workplaces instead of making the issue the fault of either particular gender. The question is thus did he mean coed workplaces and just completely failed at expressing his intention or was his intention to be sexist.

>"problem with girls...when they are in the lab".

This can be read two ways depending how you parse it.

That is, Hunt says:

1. Women fall in love with men (implicitly, to the detriment of the function of the lab) => problem with coed labs

2. Men fall in love with women (implicitly, to the detriment of the function of the lab) => problem with coed labs

Your reading of "the problem with girls...when they are in the lab" requires the sexist assumption that the default state of labs is to include males, such that that a "problem with coed labs" is a "problem with girls...when they are in the lab", because, obviously, there's always going to be men in a lab.

So, either reading is sexist, though it is true that there are different ways in which it can be sexist.

>Also, men fall in love with men, and women fall in love with women.

At a significantly lower rate. If relationships (and the desires for relationships, the fallouts from breakups, etc.) cause a significant impact in some work environment, it will be heterosexual relationships that are of greatest concern due to the percentage of total relationships they make up.

For example, where I went to college, coed dorm rooms were not allowed because most coed dorm rooms had historically been couples and relationships breakups became really messy. There was no such rule preventing homosexual couples from having a dorm room because the number of incidents was much smaller and the challenge to keep them apart was greater.

The essential reason his original comment was sexist was that the only way it makes sense is if one assumes the default state of a lab is men only.

Basically, if your thought process is that women are an optional addition to a fairly normal human activity (scientific research in this case), you're going to be accused of bias. I mean, people said almost exactly the same things about women in offices, women in factories, women in the military, gays in the military, gays in the NFL, etc.

edit: clarity