You mention, "Nobody wants to believe there's sexism in
their industry." If true, we're irrational men whose
emotional wants strongly determine our beliefs.
That's probably true to an extent. Most people are irrational at least in some areast. In this case, I don't think they're letting their desires determine their beliefs, just demanding better evidence in this case before they allow themselves to believe the unpleasant thought, in particular, before they accept the author's claim of being wronged. Perhaps I, too, am being too generous.
... and, in the method of disbelief they choose to employ, they provide the very evidence they are demanding.
Cognitive dissonance is a powerful thing, and leads to fantastic piles of irony. Humans are all irrational; anyone who claims to be rational is, in fact, irrationally rejecting the overwhelming preponderance of evidence.
The best we can do is be aware of our irrationality and attempt to compensate with tools like checklists, blind resume screening, empirical data, and awareness of biases to inform cultural and personal behavioral modifications to minimize the harm that irrationality can do to our field, our businesses and people around us.
For example, any time a human has a defensive reaction to something and lashes out with an attempt to dismiss or discredit the speaker rather than the argument it is probably because they interpreted the statement as a personal attack on their identity. That is, if someone says "bicyclists who run red lights endanger their own lives and the lives of people around them" the people who respond angrily probably went through this unconscious thought process:
"Endangering lives is bad! People who do so are bad people!"
"I run red lights on my bike, so the speaker is accusing me of being a bad person!"
"Well, they probably aren't even a bicyclist/don't know my specific commute/don't understand how hard it is to cycle to work every day, so what would they know?"
"Whew, I'm not a bad person after all!"
And then they will probably feel superior because they rejected a poorly supported argument, or an insufficiently supported argument, no matter how much evidence is presented. What should have been evidence against their behavior instead strengthened their commitment to it. I recommend the recent book "Thinking, Fast and Slow" for a more complete explanation of this process and the relevant citations.
The practical implication of this is that whenever one's first reaction is defensive dismissal of someone's report of their personal, first-person experience of the world, it isn't because they are wrong: it is because their experience being true threatens one's own self-image. That they may be wrong or purposefully lying are merely post-hock justifications for an initial emotional response.
