> Those are not the things I said. The second sentence of your 3rd to last comment: > If 20% of graduates are women, is that because of subconscious bias fav

> Those are not the things I said. The second sentence of your 3rd to last comment: > If 20% of graduates are women, is that because of subconscious bias favoring men in admissions or grading? This is definitely proposing that the disparity in computing graduates could be due to bias in admissions. This is very explicit. > I specifically said that this statistic approach is an impossible debate because fundamentally it assumes everything down the chain (elementary school, parenting, society) is not prone to similar gender bias. In reality, all of those things are prone to gender bias. The onus is on you to prove that bias exists. Otherwise, this entire chain of reasoning boils down to the a priori assumption that any disparity is the result of bias. We conclude that disparity exists because of bias. We also conclude that bias exists because of disparity. This is circular logic. > If or until such a time as that genetic evidence is discovered, I see no reason to believe that women, by nature, are inherently less capable or interested in STEM - therefore, the only useful statistic in a debate on hiring results (i.e. 38% are women) is that 50% of humans are women. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that this is the case: * Contrary to your earlier suggestion that women are less prevalent in stem due to being steered towards housework, the countries where women and men have the closest participation in housework actually have some of the lowest percentages of women in stem [1]. * Women form the minority in STEM in almost every country.[2] All across Europe, North America, Asia, South America, and Africa women make up the minority of STEM graduates. In every country in the study outside of Africa and the Middle East (which, to reiterate, are counter intuitively some of the most misogynistic countries in the world) women made up less than 1/3rd of STEM graduates. When the same pattern is consistent across widely varying societies and cultures then it's extremely difficult to attribute the disparity in STEM to culture. * There is ample evidence to suggest that girls are inherently more social than boys. Newborn girls direct more attention towards human faces than boys, and newborn boys direct more attention towards mechanical objects than newborn girls [3]. Here's some additional reading from psychology publications: https://www.pnas.org/content/108/8/3157.full https://www.pnas.org/content/108/8/3157.full https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797612458937 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/095679761245893... https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble-rouser/201707/why-brilliant-girls-tend-favor-non-stem-careers https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble-rouser/201707... https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble-rouser/201707/gender-bias-in-science-or-biased-claims-gender-bias https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble-rouser/201707... 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-equality_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender-equality_paradox 2. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/the-more-gender-equality-the-fewer-women-in-stem/553592/ https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/02/the-more... 3. https://www.math.kth.se/matstat/gru/5b1501/F/sex.pdf https://www.math.kth.se/matstat/gru/5b1501/F/sex.pdf