Perhaps for those lacking courage.
There are plenty of real world examples that demonstrate people, including sizeable organized groups, are capable of doing otherwise, at least for a few hundred years.
e.g. Vatican hardliners sticking to their canon.
I mean, that’s pretty much the reason why we have the “Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith” rather than the “Congregation of the Holy Inquisition” and “Dicastery for Evangelization” rather than “Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith” (or, and this perhaps indicates how the name had worn out better, in Latin short form “Propaganda Fidei”.)
Some older speakers use "guy" as a term of address, as in "Hey, guy", similar to how one might say "hey, bud" or even "hey you".
I don't think it will ever happen, but it's funny to imagine something similar happening and "bro(s)" coming to be a nongendered term.
Anyway, it's never crossed my mind before that "tech bros" singles out men; for me it evokes a stereotype of, yes, men, but it's really an attitude, value system, world view, or collection of behaviors that are being alluded to. (Of course, it's also only implication in the sense of "hinting at", because it's not contradictory to say "tech bros are the worst, and tech women are too").
[1] The... non-grammatical gender. English no longer has grammatical gender in any case, so it's unambiguous, but it feels weird to use "gender" in a linguistic context and not mean grammatical gender.
This attitude is exactly why "tech bro" is a perjorative. There is a prominent group of people that shares your disdain for folks who are upset that their lives are being ruined by technological changes, all so that they can have some new shiny toys and become even wealthier.
On top of being, yes, gross, being so vocal about that attitude is stupid. It would be much better to at least pretend to have some empathy or at least keep your glee to yourself.