[jwilliams]

If you reduce your argument to the merits of each unique individual hire, then you're going to miss what is a very big and complex system.

If your argument is that all 15 of these employees gained employment on their attributes completely independent of gender -- and that gender plays no part -- then it should strike you as statistically improbable that all 15 would be men.

To me that seems outlandish to ignore. Clearly there must be some biases that lead to such a bifurcated outcome.

OR your argument is that men and women are different for some reason, which led to this situation. If that's your argument then you should make that argument.

[panda88888]

Have all 15 male engineers is not THAT improbable. Assumed 80% male applicant, each hiring is independent event of others, and equal chance of hiring for both gender, it comes out to 3.5%. Or 1 out of every 30 companies with 15 engineers to have all male teams.

[jwilliams]

Well that's a different way of saying a similar thing.

In that case you're assuming that 80% of engineers should be male - which is a different argument than what was put forward.

[panda88888]

The 80% assumption is based on historical gender ratio of CS degree earned. Quick Googling shows historical percent at roughly 18% CS degree earned by women in 2014.

http://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/cracking-the-code:-why-aren...

https://www.computerscience.org/resources/women-in-computer-...

https://www.usnews.com/news/data-mine/articles/2016-10-20/st...