While I think your criticism about the example given is good, you're still only addressing the specific example given. The parent poster was trying to illustrate why gender parity might not actually be the ultimate goal. The example might have problems, but that doesn't necessarily invalidate the point that was made.
Oh, for sure. I just took the first study. And it's a good example of how big the leaps are in our thinking and communication around these topics.
It's possible the others are all stellar, but my experience says it's not likely. Because we aren't very good at thinking.
Lucid, complete thinking about even fairly simple things--as I imagine most if not all successful programmers have learned--is difficult.
Complex adaptive social systems, which can have the effects of events that happened thousands of years ago still rippling through them, have deep wells of unknown state and dynamics.
The only honest way to reason about them is with epistemic humility.
