I could say something witty about women being treated as sexual objects more frequently than men, or reference the studies pointing out that sexualized environments encourage sexual harassment and discrimination to take place (something biased against women more than men), talk about how sexual innuendo is commonly a way for men to bond over their shared attraction to women, or any number of complaints pointed out repeatedly over the years by women in this industry.
But...
I don't think Upverter was trying to discriminate, nor do I think anyone should take real offense at their title. I just think that little jokes like this often recurring does have a negative impact on our ability to attract women to (and have them thrive in) technical roles.
Then you should post these links, and point out these things. Don't just wave your hands and posit this sort of thing is against women without evidence for that point. Convert people to this cause if it's true, or silence your allusions if it's not.
Let's say if every time you saw someone talking about a particular product or service, they were wearing something that only 12 year olds wear. Let's further say you are 15 years old, and you're trying to distinguish yourself from the 12 year olds, since "they're just kids" and you are not. You're trying to not be associated with the "kids" schtick.
Given that, would you use that product and service if only people who dress like 12 year olds use it? I suspect you might avoid it, assuming you were the sort of person who cared about that sort of perception.
Or here, let me try it in terms of variables:
A: The people who are always talking about B
B: The product, service, or career they're talking about
C: The group they appear to be part of
D: You.
E: People who might look at you (D) and think you are a (C) because of your association with (B), because of the presentations put forth by (A).
If you don't make any of these connections, you may not be affected by this. However, it could still affect those who do make those connections.
By reading male gender bias into a situation when there isn't any mention of gender, it shows hyper sensitivity to gender bias. That indicates there's widespread problems around gender bias, which I'm sure we agree exist. This indication can also be off putting. (Of course the article is written by a man.)
It raises the question, which is worse, false flagging of gender bias where there isn't any, or widespread gender bias? Obviously the latter. But the former does seem weirdly counter productive, if you want to avoid putting people off, then don't put people off by false flagging things that aren't there.
In trying to see the other side of the debate: I'm sure a woman has written such a headline before, but I would imagine it's been targeted at female audiences(this could be gender bias on my part though). I might imagine the likelihood of a male writing an inappropriate bla bla "gets you laid" headline at a supposedly neutral audience is higher than a woman doing so(my gender bias again?).
I suppose also as a man writing a "gets you laid" headline, you're making assumptions about the high male/female ratio of your target audience. Most men I know, know such talk can make them unpopular with female readers. (although this could just be presumption and not actual fact, maybe female readers wouldn't give a hoot)
So those assumptions made by writing such a headline, will be obvious to the reader and off putting. Even if it wasn't obvious whether the writer was male or female, between industry stereotypes and gender bias, most people would assume such a headline about a cloud based circuit cad tool would be written by a man,(again possibly my bias).
What's my point? I don't have one, but best to play it on the safe side.
I'm actually interested in the data driven argument the poster I responded to, particularly using those studies he mentioned, not a logical debate on the topic. If you're not using real data, people on the other side often just hand wave away your objections and no one convinces anyone.
Induction is much more likely to convert the person you're talking to than deduction, as it gets around values to a degree.
When I saw this headline, it elicited a minor "groan" from me, since it reminded me of some less-desirable elements within the greater community. It, on some level, reminds me that sometimes I wish I was doing something else.
But...
I don't think Upverter was trying to discriminate, nor do I think anyone should take real offense at their title. I just think that little jokes like this often recurring does have a negative impact on our ability to attract women to (and have them thrive in) technical roles.