Isn't it also "genuine sexism" to assume she's not lying?
She's provided evidence of harassment.
No, she's providing a claim of harassment, but as has been pointed out by others, she has also been caught misrepresenting herself in the past, and the details of this new "evidence" appear to take credibility away from her claims, rather than enforce them (namely how, in the screenshot, you can see it was taken by a user not logged in, and that the account in question was created less than 5 minutes before the screenshot was taken).
If this were a courtroom, she would be the plaintiff (because she's the one making an accusation of harassment), and thus would be required to provide the supporting documentation that gives her claimed evidence credibility.
Those accusing her of lying haven't provided proof of lying.
They don't have to - burden of proof goes to the accuser, and as mentioned earlier, she is the one who is actually making an accusation here.
The win goes to the side with evidence, even if weak.
I prefer a system where the evidence is thoroughly investigated, especially if it's weak, rather than just defaulting judgement to whoever makes the most convincing case but can't actually prove their claims.
Personally, I don't trust her, not because she's a woman or anything stupid like that, but rather because I don't trust anyone I don't personally know.
If that were true, then you'd never leave your house.
Why do people assume complete trust is required for social interaction?
Assuming everyone is a violent murderer until you "know" them would be debilitating,
Yes, it would be.
and that's the natural consequence of your assertion.
No, it's not.
OK, so what's your banking access information? What, don't you trust me (and the rest of the Slashdot community)?
I trust the guy in traffic to not deliberately ram me.
Do you really? You assume he's not going to, because he's not driving like that's his intention. But say the guy in traffic is driving erratically, swerving between lanes, and being belligerent. Do you trust him to not do anything that could damage your vehicle and/or harm you?
Or do you temper your trust based on the circumstances at hand?
I trust the ATM to not give me $100 and deduct $1000 from my account.
Do you also trust that the voting machine you use hasn't been tampered with, or is there that nagging little thought in the back of your head that something could have been rigged?
I trust the store to sell me the item labeled, and not poison in a peanut butter jar.
Obviously, and contrary to what is apparently popular opinion on Slashdot, trust is not a binary decision.