>No, (3) is insane because it implies that biologically-driven preferences can change dramatically in just a few decades. That's the strawman. You've said eit

>No, (3) is insane because it implies that biologically-driven preferences can change dramatically in just a few decades. That's the strawman. You've said either everything is sexism, or everything is biology. Then you've used the fact that clearly biological preferences have not changed in a couple decades to suggest it must therefore be sexism. Somebody who's apparently a lawyer should be able to recognize how terrible that logic is. So you're either being disingenuous, or you haven't thought to examine your reasoning. >And it's hilarious that you keep criticizing me for not offering evidence, when your whole position seems rooted in "women prefer certain fields, because [???]". Seriously, what goes in that box? Your box: sexism, and only sexism. My box: absolutely everything that goes into people having preferences for things. Seriously, your reasoning here is atrocious. The null hypothesis is not "there is pervasive social discrimination against women that prevents them from entering this field", and yet that's what you leap to for all explanations for everything.