Well, the gist of this is: there aren’t enough women in “tech”, so different standards should be applied for women until there are. Setting aside all the other problems I have with this: law and medicine have much stricter barriers for entry. There are no practicing doctors or lawyers without advanced degrees, but there are plenty of women in both professions. So even if you accept the premise, it’s still pretty clear you’re barking up the wrong tree here.
Alternative hypothesis: law and medicine started proactively working on their "pipeline problem" many decades earlier, and have had time to reach parity. Computer science, in the sense of the modern job market of elite grads going to bay area employers, is barely into its third decade of existence.
Seriously: go back to the 50's and 60's and you'll find all these same arguments about how women can't be good doctors and law is a man's world. And they were all wrong.
Why is computer science special in a way that medicine isn't? Why can women heal but not code? Isn't that the harder point to prove than "it's a pipeline problem"?
Have you considered that women may prefer to heal than to code and when they need to choose a career they choose healing, so this is the real explanation why most doctors in my country are women and most people in IT are men?
They learned that being a lawyer earns you prestige and lots of money.
Compare that to computer science and being viewed as a geek, nerd, loner. Even though it's less bad at this day and age, it's not even comparable to medicine and law.
Equality of opportunity does not generate equality of outcome as soffits revealed on Scandinavia. And it shouldn't.
People are individuals and they should not need to conform to a flawed notion that everything should be 50/50
