Now here's my answer: This isn't about sexism. It's about the way a group of men behave when they are working in / learning a field of study where the overwhelming majority have, in the past, been men. It creates a lot of needless tension for the women in the group.
Women stand a far better chance of learning to program when they are in a non-intimidating environment where they don't have to put up with a bunch of condescending jerks (take your pick): staring at them, competing with them, putting them in "their place", patronizing them. And this is not because they are women, but because enough of the guys are jerks. Reverse the roles, and this would be just as true.
Nothing I said was worthy of sarcasm. I would sincerely enjoy the opportunity to learn python from the ground up with that level of support and mentoring. And yes, it's a little disconcerting that some conferences would keep me out based on my anatomy.
In the face of such support generated by this event, is it so bad to hope for an analogous event aimed at my demographic?
Hidden in that is the subtle assumption that women need to be protected. Particularly in the clause "competing with them," I find protectionism evident.
Now, I'm not saying these groups shouldn't exist, or that they're wrong, or that a group of mostly men can and often does create a hostile environment for women.
But your phrasing makes me uncomfortable, internally, as if I feel you're not quite leery enough of how much you're using sexism to combat sexism.
There is nothing wrong with that, it is very pragmatic and a good chunk of the 'ism' reasoning behind affirmative action (which I generally support). But "Reverse the roles, and this would be just as true" is essentially saying "If men were women and women were men, we'd still be playing with standard gender roles, so it's fair!" which doesn't quite compute.