From the article:

Most of all, I'm disappointed. I had a haven, a place where no one cared what I looked like, what my body was like or about any ephemera—they cared about what I could do—and this culture shift has robbed me of my haven. At least I had that haven. The girls who follow me missed out on it.

You know what's disgusting? People getting disgusted over issues that don't warrant disgust.

I’m not sure how exclusionary rhetoric follows from that. It just doesn’t make any sense to me.

Also, I think that statement is just outright wrong and misleading.

I wrote my first comment before reading the article, and later found that paragraph in which the article's author seemed to share my sentiments.

In my first comment I may have been speculating on the motivations of others, but I did so by drawing in part on my own experiences. Programming, computers, BBSes/online services/Internet, etc. gave me something I could do as a grade school child that didn't depend on other people's approval of my social identity. My point was and is that it would be just as tragic to drive off the social misfits as it would be tragic to exclude the socially adept.

Sadly, sometimes it seems the mainstream have seen how much money can be made by former and present misfits as hackers and want to take ownership of it for themselves.

Edited to add: After rereading the thread, it seems you may have been commenting specifically on the sentence that I quoted. I don't intend to justify the heuristic that leads some to assume non-social-outcasts are non-hackers, only to explain it, and perhaps find a way of bridging the gap between those who use that heuristic, and those who are harmed by it.

I think a lot of programmers and such have bought into a dress code that involves ratty old tshirts and jeans and that kind of thing, c.f. scorn at people who show up to technical interviews in a suit