>" your argument above effectively boils down to "it could be they don't apply because they're predisposed against it, so let's not even try" " No the assumpti

>" your argument above effectively boils down to "it could be they don't apply because they're predisposed against it, so let's not even try" " No the assumption is made further up stream than this. The assumption is that a 'low' (defined how exactly, compared to what, applying what rationale?) number of female applicants is evidence of prejudice. I simply ask how you know. Id like to know what proportion of female applicants would indicate no such prejudice and how that is arrived at. I also question the assumed 'correct' course of action is to prejudge based on gender in an effort to combat this apparent perceived prejudice based on gender. This is a nonsense. It is a fashion. The likes of YC should know better.