I didn't refer at all to the event, despite this thread being about the event. I was just making a point about the possibility of you not being seen as a "programmer".
Possibly I wouldn't characterize you as a recruiter or a programmer based on what you described.
I've been a development manager for many years and programming is an integral part of my role. But I'm a manager, not a "programmer", since I believe it's the dominant aspect of what I do.
So that choice of words could have been more influenced by a possible emphasis on the interview aspect of your role, rather than its programming aspect. I haven't seen the discussion so I can only speak from what I've read.
I've known many hiring managers who were not programmers and knew all of what you mentioned. Some of them were even program managers with a strong CS background - none of them programmers by any definition since they didn't program at all, ever.
Then focus on this situation. Don't create new ones.
Do you think it's reasonable to listen to a talk when someone is discusses, in technical details, big O, binary trees, graph algorithms, coding, system design, object oriented design, etc and walk away from that saying "recruiter"?
So you're imagining a totally different situation and then saying that, in that situation, it might be reasonable to call me "not a programmer." I really fail to see your point.
It sounds like you're trying to do this to argue against gender bias being real. This is what's called "straw man fallacy."
If I were arguing that every single time that I'm called something other than programmer that there is gender bias, then your point would be valid. But I'm not arguing that.
I'm not trying to argue against gender bias. Gender bias is very real and I've seen it many times. As I've seen age bias, ethnic bias etc. These are real and I have been target of bias myself.
All I'm saying is that I haven't seen evidence in what I read that would strongly indicate gender bias in this instance. You are making the claim so you have the burden of proof. I'm just stating my skepticism regarding your presented evidence.
The best way for bias to be taken seriously by others is to only claim bias when the case for it is very clear. This helps combat people who say that "anything today is considered bias".
Possibly I wouldn't characterize you as a recruiter or a programmer based on what you described.
I've been a development manager for many years and programming is an integral part of my role. But I'm a manager, not a "programmer", since I believe it's the dominant aspect of what I do.
So that choice of words could have been more influenced by a possible emphasis on the interview aspect of your role, rather than its programming aspect. I haven't seen the discussion so I can only speak from what I've read.
I've known many hiring managers who were not programmers and knew all of what you mentioned. Some of them were even program managers with a strong CS background - none of them programmers by any definition since they didn't program at all, ever.