> Isn't the point she's making that she didn't fit the culture primarily because of her gender?

It is, but the point a lot of people are making here is that maybe she sees the situation in a wrong way, as her perspective is a reflection of her gender, so she cannot really judge if the problems happened primarily because of her gender. Actually, the fact that the other female employees felt secure and relaxed enough that they were hola-hooping in the office suggests otherwise.

> A workplace just filled with happy young male developers is not necessarily a healthy environment, or one that necessarily has a good culture.

It's also not necessarily an unhealthy/toxic environment.

> It's also not necessarily an unhealthy/toxic environment.

Honestly this is very close to gender discrimination, which is clearly illegal. If you created an environment that only young male developers will enjoy how is that much different then explicitly saying you won't hire any female developers?

To me it's in a similar vein of when literacy tests were employed in the South to prevent African Americans from voting. It wasn't saying you couldn't vote if you were black but it had the same effect of denying most blacks suffrage anyway. So you're not saying women can't work here, but we're just going to encourage/promote a culture that isn't one most women would want to be a part of anyway.

A couple hundred mostly-males built a company that was wildly successful where they loved to work. Now it sounds like they have to destroy that, build a culture that is professional and antiseptic, to make feminists feel welcome.

It doesn't have to be "antiseptic" at all - there are plenty of thriving, wildly-successful, mostly-males companies with great cultures where women feel comfortable too.

Also, it wouldn't be changing it "for feminists" - it's changing it to welcome any people, of either sex, who aren't comfortable in that environment. Just because feminists might be the most vocal about it doesn't mean it doesn't affect others too.

They don't even have to change their culture at all; all they need to do is to tone down the more aggressive parts of that culture towards certain people. Which shouldn't be difficult - I'm sure all of them have friends with whom they're more calm and less aggressive, or family members. They just need to transfer a bit of this thoughtfulness to the office.

It's not about changing because feminism, it's just the human decency of being reasonable and respectable to everyone, as far as is possible.

> Actually, the fact that the other female employees felt secure and relaxed enough that they were hola-hooping in the office suggests otherwise.

No it doesn't, really. There can still be a problem, even if it's easier to ignore it than to cause a fuss and risk your career.

> It's also not necessarily an unhealthy/toxic environment

Absolutely agree - but if, when you add a female developer, there is hostility towards her that appears to be motivated in part by her gender, then one should revise one's opinion of the "healthiness" of that environment.

Obviously this is one person's account and, absent a response from GitHub, it will stay that way. Nevertheless, I'm sorry that she felt victimised, and I think her account is a useful vantage point from which to discuss issues of "cultural fit" in all-male teams.

I wanted to make it clear in my writing, but apparently it wasn't: I think their culture is very flawed. Period. However, that's the culture they seem to want, so that said, my judgment was only against such poor hiring decisions, which are apparent in the outcome of this situation.

Define good culture. Why would you assume to know what a good culture is? Why would a workplace filled with happy young males be necessarily a bad culture?

> Why would a workplace filled with happy young males be necessarily a bad culture?

That's not what I said.