> I had literally 0 CS prior to college. I am not a programmer and have no desire to ever be one and I would likely be a mediocre programmer at best if forced t

> I had literally 0 CS prior to college. I am not a programmer and have no desire to ever be one and I would likely be a mediocre programmer at best if forced to do so for a living - CS101 was literally the easiest class I had in college. What exactly does 0 CS mean? If you've never picked up a programming book that doesn't mean you had 0 CS exposure, 0 CS exposure is if you've never seen a computer and never reasoned about a logical system. Extremely rare among programmers yet actually not at all uncommon among many people I grew up around. If CS is so basic, why are there so many people who can't understand for loops? How often do we kick a person to the curb if they can't immediately understand simple algebra or don't instantly figure out how to read? Is simple algebra basic? Is reading basic? How long do those take? How hard it is to teach reading to a person who has never read? Among those who have never read, are there going to be a few who'll pick it up quickly anyway? It seems you consider it simple because it was simple for you. Maybe you got the one 101 CS class that was actually reasonable? "CS 101" isn't a monolith, there are many of them across colleges and programs, and some programs have improved on the matter. > I have NEVER met a person who failed out of CS101 and had any place trying to become a professional programmer. Well, that's kind of a self-biasing conclusion, isn't it? And it's not going to be very encouraging to any kind of person to fail a 101 class in a field. I don't trust any one person to decide who has a place to become a professional programmer so I don't see that as any sort of evidence or an argument. People not being able to see potential in other people is old news. In every CS class I've been in there was a huge disparity between those who have coded before and those who haven't, and it was only greater in the earlier classes. That disparity was not replicated in other classes. Those who have coded before could effectively do nothing and pass the class with flying colors while the rest barely scraped by. I have taken multiple high school CS classes due to school jumping and every single CS class had this effect. No, not hard evidence, but something you don't seem to be mentioning at all, and I've heard similar reports from lots of people. > You've got scientific evidence proving the chemical make-up of men and women are identical? We're not discussing whether or not they're identical and never where. We're discussing whether or not they completely and utterly explain the current gender disparity. That we do not know and will not truly know for a very long time. Assigning various things to gender differences has a very bad track record in history, which is why many of us will be skeptical of that easily available conclusion for quite some time, because there are other forces and motivations at play. I don't need to prove that something isn't true. The onus is on you to prove that it is true. You're generally not arguing in good faith, which, unfortunately, casts doubt on the sources of your convictions.