I feel like you've missed the point, namely: "if all companies ensured 50/50 hiring, so that exactly half their jobs were taken by female applicants, then simpl

I feel like you've missed the point, namely: "if all companies ensured 50/50 hiring, so that exactly half their jobs were taken by female applicants, then simply because of the large number of jobs taken across the whole industry and the relatively small number of female applicants for those places, virtually all the females who apply will be employed, regardless of their actual skill". You're addressing the question of what happens if only one marginal company does that; the parent was addressing the question of what happens if that's a universal policy. (I pass no judgement about the validity of the above argument; the thought experiment elsewhere on this thread about "suppose 5% of working women are great at tech" is at least a counterargument.) The entire discussion doesn't address the systemic changes which happen if nearly every female applicant is employed, of course; one obvious thing that would probably happen is that more females would consider applying to this sort of job, which most would agree is a good thing.