> How does population distributions apply here? To apply my previous metaphor: We shouldn't be trying to get more women to like burgers. We should make the foo

> How does population distributions apply here? To apply my previous metaphor: We shouldn't be trying to get more women to like burgers. We should make the food we serve appeal more to women. To step out of the metaphor: Perhaps we shouldn't be having software engineering roles that put so much emphasis on the parts that don't seem to appeal to women (generally) as much. We might have more success modifying the roles so that they appeal more to women (generally). He's also acknowledging that some roles might inherently have facets that appeal more to men in a way that can't be easily changed. Just like a role that's inherently very social and perhaps deals heavily with small children might be difficult to make appeal more to men (generally). That in no way implies men aren't suited to be kindergarten teachers, or that the men who are kindergarten teachers aren't good at it. It just means trying to make it more competitive or take the focus off the interaction with the children isn't likely to work well. > I'm genuinely interested in the answers to these specific (albeit) minor questions. But I brought this up as one aggravating example of how open, intellectually honest discussion is difficult when the claims are unspecific and unsupported. Respectfully: It's difficult when any opposing claim is assumed to be sexist. Like I said, it's in fact very easy to have an intellectually honest discussion about how to make a restaurant, car, or apartment building appeal more to women--even without explicit scientific studies backing up every statement! It is because people are choosing to infer meaning that wasn't there in order to be offended and virtue signal that it is difficult to have this discussion.