Yes, it's statistically true that women are questioned more often than men about (among other things) whether their symptoms are "real", are psychosomatic, are caused by the thing they think they're caused by, etc. It's totally appropriate to point that out, as gdubs did, and to remind people that unconscious bias is a thing.
It's another thing to just tell someone they've questioned a woman in a way they wouldn't have questioned a man, without knowing anything more about them. It's obviously incorrect that men are never questioned in the same fashion or that this line of questioning is always inappropriate. It's generally unknowable what would have happened in the same situation with reversed genders. What do you think is gained by this kind of specific, confident accusation? Do you think they're going to say "oh, I thought about this, and you're right, I was being sexist, thanks, all better now?" No! Everyone digs into their positions, flamewars erupt, reputations are damaged, and/or people think (correctly, IMHO) that accusations of sexism are often false, etc. And I don't think you're following the HN guidelines of assuming good faith.
Personally, I have no idea if the author's symptoms are caused by the environmental conditions at the building site. The evidence presented isn't compelling. She has made a compelling case though that gathering this evidence is hard, if not impossible, due to broken regulatory structures.
This is a forum with a bunch of (pseudo) technophiles. I'd expect them to be more, rather than less, inclined to believe someone who got sensors and other data together. The expressed skepticism isn't gender motivated.
