Why do people jump to 50/50? Because that seems to be the goal of people pushing diversity: desirable fields like software should reflect the population at larg

Why do people jump to 50/50? Because that seems to be the goal of people pushing diversity: desirable fields like software should reflect the population at large [1]. I think the assumption that 50/50 is desirable is wrong, too. So far I haven't heard of any compelling reason that genders are equal in all jobs - only the opposite (in both directions - some jobs have way more women). In fact, how do these folks even know 50/50 is fair to women? What if it turns out that women are actually better at software engineering, and the ratio should be 2:1 in favour of women? How are they determining these numbers? Or are they just making them up? He's also challenging the point that identity=diversity. Getting a man and a woman that were born in the same area, had similar wealth growing up, went to the same schools, have same "political" views, etc. is not nearly as diverse as getting two men from different parts of the country with different political views, differ in wealth, etc. None of this should detract from trying to eliminate bias. Blind reviewing sounds great, for instance - perhaps they should do that for the first pass where it's feasible to hide the candidate's details. Or provide transcripts of phone interviews then have people rate them and see how biased things are. There's ways to do research on this issue, but it seems that even suggesting there might be differences is a way to provoke "outrage". 1: I see less outrage about low female representation in mining and hunting, for instance, or people demanding dentists stop employing so many females as dental assistants.