Gender is just one example of disparities that exist for non-biased reasons. You have indeed used unequal outcomes as evidence of disparities, in fact your repe

Gender is just one example of disparities that exist for non-biased reasons. You have indeed used unequal outcomes as evidence of disparities, in fact your repeat it in this very comment: > I have gone out of my way to explicitly talk about consistent outcomes however, and where a discrepancy is found, to understand why. My point is that the burden of proof is on the person alleging discrimination to prove that an inconsistent outcome stems from bias. You've concluded that this disparities means underrepresented groups are bing "pushed out" on account of this unequal outcome. This is a big leap in logic, and instead of actually trying to substantiate your claims you're saying I'm not addressing your point. I fully acknowledge your point: some other discrimination outside the scope of the hiring process, or whatever else we're talking about, is having an effect. And my point is that you're merely postulating this as fact and doing nothing to substantiate this statement. What am I missing? You say I'm missing your point, so please explain what I'm missing.