Thinking that the natural state of affairs is 50% of both genders [1] in everything is exactly the assumption that Scott shows to be unsupported by data. And ju

Thinking that the natural state of affairs is 50% of both genders [1] in everything is exactly the assumption that Scott shows to be unsupported by data. And just to be sure: unsupported does not mean 'false'. The 'opposite' assumption is not supported either. If there was no sexism, no racism, no *ism, no history and no cultural predisposition towards anything whatsoever, it could still be that only 30% of all leaders would be women, simply because women would be found to be less biologically predisposed to wanting to be the leader and leadership would go to the best suited person that wants to do the job. Some women argue that in that situation 70% of all leaders would be women, because everyone would recognize them as better leaders and would ask them to lead. I recognize and acknowledge that as a fully valid option. That could also be. The point is that we simply do not know. [1] 'all identities in ratio of their self-identification'