But to what extent are physical factors a rationalization? We can mix-and-match the genders and degree of manual labor involved and see exceptions; men working

But to what extent are physical factors a rationalization? We can mix-and-match the genders and degree of manual labor involved and see exceptions; men working in construction; men working as engineers; men working sedentary office jobs; women in nursing; women in education; men and women in animal husbandry. To me it's not obvious what the dimensions are that are relevant to professions that humans have a gender disposition toward, and what percentage of out current distribution of professions should be explained by cultural ideas rather than such dispositions, and it may never be obvious. Regardless, (and this is a tangent to the current comment thread) I understand the current push for gender diversity in professions to have several purposes that is not contingent on there being no gender disposition in professions. 1) Maximizing individual capabilities. The idea being that proponents of profession diversity wants to increase the number of fulfilling career paths an individual is able to make by removing obstacles, real and perceived, by the individual and by the industry. Obstacles include, for example, pay differences, glass ceilings, stigmata, workplace hours. 2) Increasing manpower, which is related to the previous goal, but from the perspective of government. When people able to perform well at a job but instead work at a job where they provide suboptimal utility due to gender discrimination, that is value lost for a society. When professions and gender are rigid, that is resilience and flexibility compromised. A competitive society thus has an incentive to decouple professions from gender. Thus, whereas a gender disposition may explain present distributions, it nevertheless does not invalidate the reasons behind