>I don't understand what it would mean for you to "evaluate this for yourself". You have no way of independently verifying what's she's saying, quotes or no quotes.
It is the difference, though, between accepting a conclusion, and seeing the path that led there.
"This guy is incompetent because he writes insecure code"
vs
"He often wrote code that would allow untrusted input, of undetermined size, into a fixed size buffer. This behavior caused me to question his competence."
vs
"<the actual code, dumped here>. He was constantly checking in code like this, or worse. I question his competence."
The first requires you take the author's conclusion at face value. The second and/or third give you a better idea of why they got there, which makes it more credible.
And, while no names were named, there's enough contextual clues that I'm sure many at Apple know who's being talked about. So, it's less about "you're a crazy female" and more about "lots of people are being called sexist here (one supervisor, several coworkers), would be more comfortable with that if there were more detail".
I guess this is not getting through, but she's not submitting the article to you for you to evaluate. She's not obliged to tell you about any of this in the first place, and she can give as much or as little detail as she feels is appropriate. If you just don't trust her, then quotes would make no difference. If you are willing to believe her, then believe also that a woman is perfectly capable of figuring out when she's being harassed and doesn't need you to check her reasoning for her. The idea that you are going to find some flaw in her reasoning on the basis of a few quotes, with no knowledge of the individuals or situations involved, is really quite absurd.
It is the difference, though, between accepting a conclusion, and seeing the path that led there.
"This guy is incompetent because he writes insecure code"
vs
"He often wrote code that would allow untrusted input, of undetermined size, into a fixed size buffer. This behavior caused me to question his competence."
vs
"<the actual code, dumped here>. He was constantly checking in code like this, or worse. I question his competence."
The first requires you take the author's conclusion at face value. The second and/or third give you a better idea of why they got there, which makes it more credible.
And, while no names were named, there's enough contextual clues that I'm sure many at Apple know who's being talked about. So, it's less about "you're a crazy female" and more about "lots of people are being called sexist here (one supervisor, several coworkers), would be more comfortable with that if there were more detail".