Your conclusion sets a precise numerical (in)equality: Female competence >= Male competence. Your data is entirely non existent and/ or handwavy. Let's assume

Your conclusion sets a precise numerical (in)equality: Female competence >= Male competence. Your data is entirely non existent and/ or handwavy. Let's assume that 1) is a good metric. Then 2) needs to be argued for and quantified. 3) follows from the (missing) quantification of 2, plus some other parameter for its impact. 4) Also needs to be numerically quantified: what's the ratio between male and female billionaires? So we're back at square one: you believe your parameters to be whatever they need to be to make your conclusion true. That doesn't prove much, does it?