[marbletiles]

Periods are relevant to a "small handful" of women? Have you discussed your thinking with any women?

Is it a "pretty grotesque" sense of entitlement at work when a man looks for a urinal in a public building? Or when a disabled person looks for the wheelchair ramp? These things have half utility at best by your "obvious metric".

Take this further: imagine architecture firms were staffed mostly (80%+) by women. They keep getting complaints because their doorways are only 5'11" high (ideal for 99% of women's bodies), they don't provide urinals and so on.

Is it a wild assumption that having more men – or, god, "experts in catering to men (who might be men but also women)" - on their teams would help address these repeated own goals? Or do we need to spend years getting the data that shows us the real, mysterious, non-political underlying cause of this gender bias in buildings?

[cutemonster]

It seems to me that buildings and medicine and cars and gym equipment and everything, need to be usability tested on all groups of people: short, tall, men, women, black, white, thin, fat, old, young, wheelchair, blind, deaf.

But I don't think all those groups of people need to take part in the construction work.

It'd be nice with more diversity in tech. So please don't misunderstand. I just think that there are other better examples of how diversity is good.

(Usability testing: Testing early prototypes I suppose -- it's not that easy to redo, say, a car, once it's in production.)

> keep getting complaints because their doorways are only 5'11" high (ideal for 99% of women's bodies),

That thought makes me feel upset! (Although I'm not a human. But I am tall) Thanks for a good example

[thu2111]

I feel like you're deliberately mis-interpreting me. It's a small number of women who kick up a big fuss on Twitter about the choices of Apple's PM team.