If you like fallacies look up argumentum verbosium.
But it seems that most of the people involved in the discussions I read want to have an emotional argument, unsupported by any explainable moral or legal framework.
And that annoys me to no end because our current legal framework seems to be a pretty good one for most parts of the discussion. Can someone be fired for telling a sexual joke at a conference? Yes. Most employment is at-will, telling sexual jokes is not a protected action, and there's nothing which implies that it's a pretext for some other protected action. Can someone take a picture of others at a Python conference, without their permission? Yes, excepting certain narrow legal limits.
Can someone 'name and shame'? Yes, truthful accounts are protected under the First Amendment. Is "name and shame" ethical? The law just says that it's legal, since there's no slander involved. But I don't want to get into the name-and-shame topic because a quick scan shows that there's no effective way to distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable publish shaming and still have free speech rights. At least, I can't come up with one and no one has described one that looks the first bit achievable.
Is it okay to fire someone who files a report about sexual discrimination? Only if it's a false or spurious report, and the benefit of the doubt is given to the person who makes the report. Otherwise it's a protected action. Can someone be fired for not being "unprofessional"? Yes, unless it's a pretext for retaliation against a protected action, in which case the answer is no.
See, with the law in mind this discussion seems a whole lot easier. And with it in mind the questions are things like "what moral principles should guide changes to the law?", "how would changes to the law affect previous decisions?", and "what can we do to improve things without changing the law?"
But saying, eg, that it's acceptable to fire Richards for taking pictures of people at a conference without their permission is to ignore the law and society expectations entirely and to live in a fantasy world.
What do I do? I'm a self-employed person who writes software for the computational chemistry industry. I'm also a member of the PSF, which is the organization that sponsors PyCon. Over the last few years, we've been struggling with having a code of conduct for meetings like this. As such, I have a personal interest in understanding what went on, so that I might be involved in affecting change. Before last week, I had very little interest in this topic.
And as for argumentum verbosium, were it so easy. Then I would just ask to highlight the flaws in my fallacious logic and be done with it. But, no, I have a chronic case of logorrhoea. My Match.com profile was "intimidating" for its length, and I've been told I write very long and detailed emails.
Discussion over