[reroute1]

I could just as easily say you are looking at a biological difference and inferring a societal bias. Just because it doesn't exist in the same proportion everywhere doesn't mean that the difference is not biologically based. There are endless confounding factors that would lead to variations in different locations. The fact that the overall difference stems from biological differences doesn't require universal equivalence of the effect.

For example men on average have more muscle mass than women. If you found a random population of women that had proportionally higher muscle masses compared with their male peers, that doesn't discount the biological fact.

[gamblor956]

You're citing an actual biological difference in human biology to try and support an unsupported claim of a nonbiological difference...

One that is refuted by the history of computer programming, which used to be a female-dominated field back when programming was significantly harder than it is today.

[reroute1]

I chose a clear biological difference to illustrate the point that was being argued, about one sample population disproving the larger trend. And it's not an unsupported claim there is plenty of science and argument for why men and women choose different careers.

Please note that this doesn't discount any actual gender bias that may exist. The biological claim is only that men and women in general have a given set of personality traits. That isn't controversial science. It also isn't controversial because it doesn't claim that men are better engineers or better anything, just that more in general may naturally gravitate towards certain activities.