[retrogradeorbit]

Did you not get the memo? Gender is purely a social construct. It has no biological underpinning. One can identify as any gender they feel. And then they are that gender. Thus any "differences" you may think you perceive between genders are not real. They are purely cosmetic.

[konschubert]

/s, I presume ?

[Dylan16807]

There's a lot of evidence that the gender felt by a trans person is biological, fyi.

If they could just change it, I assure you so many people that suffer dysphoria would snap their fingers and cure themselves.

.

And it's gender roles that are a social construct, not gender identity. It's unfortunate that both those terms are referred to as "gender", but please try not to spread the confusion.

[ur-whale]

Can't tell if sarcasm

[seagullz]

Sans /s probably because "explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog; you understand it better but the frog dies in the process."

[starbeast]

Did you not get the memo? All social constructs are biological. All behaviour has a biological underpinning, how could it be otherwise?

[atoav]

Similar to the relation between hardware and software?

[starbeast]

Am writing some verilog at the moment, so maybe...

[retrogradeorbit]

I don't disagree with you at all. There are a huge amount of people who do disagree with you, though. You just commented that you didn't know anyone pushing such a narrative. And that surprised me because it's everywhere. So I thought I'd just flesh out that dominant point of view so that you could identify it in the society around you.

What I think this study shows (and its not the first) is that it debunks the notion that discrimination is the only reason for any differences in gender representation. If a particular field does not have a 50/50 gender split, then that must be wholly explainable by discrimination. This study shows that this is not the case. There is a component of the unequal split that is based on personal preference. And that personal preference has a biological component. This idea is taboo.

[starbeast]

I generally take the view that any time you are dealing with a biological system, whether it be a single cell or the global economy, should you find yourself in a quandary where you are wondering if something is caused by this thing or that thing (nature/nurture being the classic), the answer is nearly always both, plus a whole bunch of some other stuff you hadn't even begun to consider. Biology is horrendously complex and messy, and anything built on biology is even messier.

[jahaja]

> it debunks the notion that discrimination is the only reason for any differences in gender representation.

Which is also a notion that nobody has ever argued but suits polarized demagoguery.

[rohit2412]

I think the above notion is the biggest component of the gender pay gap.

[jahaja]

Could you clarify what you mean please? I'm arguing against the imagined notion (which is also regarding representation, not pay).

[rohit2412]

Well, that notion is certainly used to argue about gender pay gap, where figures like 77 cents to the dollar are touted of.

For representation, if you increase the scope of the notion from "discrimination is the only reason" to "discrimination and unconscious social biases are the only reason", it certainly applies.