I reread your post a few time but I'm a bit puzzled. Can you explain the connection between the fizzbuzz test, being a real developer, sexism and the article?
He's saying that just because you don't have first-hand experience with something, or can't fathom how something is possible, doesn't mean it can't happen.
Thank you ssharp, that's exactly what I was trying to convey.
Huh. I read your comment more as "you can be perceived as an expert in your trade and still suck at it." Groping a potential client's boobs is a clear sign of sucking at being a VC.
Many more people fail the fizzbuzz test than you would expect. Likewise, more women are treated in this fashion than you would expect.
Summary: it might be hard to believe that things like these happen, but they do. Just because you have not personally experienced it does not mean you should generalise your experience to all people. For example, many programmers fail the fizzbuzz test, despite the parent's inability to find such people amongst his friends and associates.
I think he is inferring that just as there are outliers in terms of programming competency, there are also outliers in terms of ethical behaviour.
I believe the OP is saying that while it is often difficult to believe that events like fizz buzz fails or overt sexual misconduct could even be possible because they seem so unlikely and outside of the realm of expectations in our personal daily experiences, that does not mean that they don't happen or are even all that rare given a broader sampling of human interactions.