I saw that you said women might also be stronger in tech, but I know that you don't actually think that we are, because you also think that men are predominant

I saw that you said women might also be stronger in tech, but I know that you don't actually think that we are, because you also think that men are predominant in tech fields for biological reasons. Unless you think that women are stronger in tech and biologically predisposed against it, the only possibility is that you think women are weaker in tech. Further, if you didn't believe that it was women who are weaker in tech, it wouldn't be contextually relevant to bring up the possibility of a skill difference in a discussion about the prevalence of women in tech. Finally when confronted about this, you don't explicitly deny thinking that women are inferior in tech, you just point out that your comment didn't technically exclude the logical possibility that you thought otherwise. People reading your comments aren't stupid and aren't robots: the "I'm not touching you" game doesn't fool anyone. The chance that the natural gender distribution across a profession would be exactly 50/50 would be quite low, in the same way that any particular hand in a card game is unlikely. However, the chance that the natural percentage of women would be 50±n could be quite reasonable for low values of n. By contrast, the chance that we would get the actual distribution of men vs. women in (say) software engineering we see in the real word by chance alone is incredibly low. Every adult who isn't mentally disabled understands what an average is. However, saying "women are inferior" does not become less offensive when you add "on average" to then end. And yes, I only have specific information saying that you think women are inferior in tech, but every argument you've made could just as easily be applied to business, politics, or pretty much any area of life that has an important impact on the world.