Why wasn't 'wrong' enough? Why should any honestly-presented, based-on-experience opinion like Arrington's generate 'offense'? Why not assume good faith?
Because the entire discussion is bogged down by people trying to signal how egalitarian they are, and if anyone has a marginally differing viewpoint then they must be distanced as far as possible as violently as possible lest the speaker be perceived as a bigot.
Personally? I don't think this is something that needs to be fixed. If women want to get into tech, they'll get into tech, and that'll be that. Many already have, and many more will continue to do so. Forcing the issue just keeps people on edge, overreacting to try to keep their perceived latent bigotry under wraps.
It's "offensively wrong" because the author (a male) is striving for an image of being genuinely sympathetic to The Plight. "Look at me, I'm so understanding."
'Disingenuous' isn't quite the word I would use. I'm sure the author really does think he's contributing to The Crusade, which is precisely the problem. He can't just dissect the errors in Arrington's logic. No, that's not good enough.
He needs to put on a Crusader uniform and act like he thinks those people are supposed to act: offended. He can't just BE offended, he must explicitly tell you he's offended, and start swinging his sword around so you know what a noble Crusader he is.
If he were responding to a blog post offensive to men, would he have used that language? No, because being offended for yourself isn't noble, it's being offended for others. And telling everyone about it as much as you can. How else will people know what an altruist you are?
Why wasn't 'wrong' enough? Why should any honestly-presented, based-on-experience opinion like Arrington's generate 'offense'? Why not assume good faith?