There's lots of possibilities. It's really hard to tell whether any of these things are cultural or come from actual gender dimorphism (to use the technical bio

There's lots of possibilities. It's really hard to tell whether any of these things are cultural or come from actual gender dimorphism (to use the technical biological term). Ultimately it doesn't matter if they are irrelevant to ability. What I'm saying is that when we are evaluating peoples' abilities, we should take care to evaluate actual ability rather than unreliable proxies for ability. The latter are prejudices, basically, and they blind us to a lot of talent that might not fit those lazy filters. I'm neither a "PC liberal" nor a conservative/reactionary on this issue. Liberals pretend differences in ability don't exist, while conservatives like to defend the accuracy of our "gut" prejudices and argue there's nothing wrong. IMHO equality of opportunity comes when people make an effort to look at actual ability as objectively as possible. It's in your best interest as an employer to do this. Good people are very hard to find, and if you're running some kind of dumb ape-brain filter that excludes ~50% of the population from consideration you are handicapping your recruitment efforts pretty badly. Think like a human being.