It’s ridiculous because there is no evidence, just misinformed anecdotes. There is no field for gender on the application. The “equivalent” factors cited (incom

It’s ridiculous because there is no evidence, just misinformed anecdotes. There is no field for gender on the application. The “equivalent” factors cited (income, credit score) are all irrelevant for credit limit decisions, which are primarily based on previous revolving credit usage. Given that DHH owns basecamp as an LLC, and not a corporation - known as a disregard entity for tax purposes - means he is likely putting all business expenses on revolving credit cards, which would create a massive disparity. That’s just one of many plausible explanations. DHH didn’t even understand that he is not in fact in a community property state - although this wouldn’t have been relevant either. And there are many counter-examples that our confirmation bias doesn’t seem to be interested in: https://mobile.twitter.com/jimcopus/status/1193733746614128640 https://mobile.twitter.com/jimcopus/status/11937337466141286... Furthermore, Goldman issued a public statement confirming that they reviewed the complaints and they are not using gender as a parameter. This would be trivial for an investigator to confirm, so it’s unlikely that they’d be stupid enough to outright lie about it. Jumping to the worst possible conclusion based on a twitter anecdote is not helpful to anybody.