I think it isn’t equality in numbers but in activity screening out women. So there may still be a 8:1 ratio of men:women but according to the article, it would

I think it isn’t equality in numbers but in activity screening out women. So there may still be a 8:1 ratio of men:women but according to the article, it would seem than even that 1 women would have been negatively impacted. I am not arguing the validity of their conclusions, just saying that I don’t think that it’s about equal numbers: given a male and female applicant, according to the article, women would have had an unequal chance of passing the screening. (Now if that inequality was for valid reasons, that to me, is an open question, but the article indicates that there was unjustifiable bias.)