I think the issue is that there’s a kind of Jim Crow discrimination if we try to act as if “technical” is a valid filter for whether someone is recognized as making a clear contribution. If women are less likely to make technical contributions, and we only recognize technical contributions, then we’re de facto minimizing crucial contributions of women.
Also, what does “technical” even mean? Why is setting up the legal structure of a company non-technical but writing HTML for the web site is technical?
Sometimes I wonder if non-technical is just a slur.
Had it been early years of YC, this post of explaining herself could have made sense. After so many years of being at the helm of YC, who is a nut to doubt her? Or is it that she is still insecure and any indirect reference to her capability, she begins to explain herself. I am speculating and I would be really happy to be proven wrong!
