[pcthrowaway]

I think the person you're responding to is referencing intersectional feminism (more recently mainstream in social justice and feminism discussions), which is perhaps somewhat related to what's being discussed, but really not the topic at hand.

What is relevant is that the general discourse focuses more on systemic differences in opportunity to disadvantaged groups. In this case, we're talking about women as the ostensibly disadvantaged group.

I think what people fail to understand though, is that marginalization can take many forms. If women are less likely to continue interviewing after rejection, this doesn't mean that they have the same opportunity; instead, it suggests that systemic factors play into this. The "intersectional" take on this is really focused on how different components of identity work together to shape an individual's experience, in subtle ways that compound. Hence, just growing up in a society where young women and men have even mildly different attitudes impressed upon them from a young age, can have more noticeable effects on their outcomes much later in life

[parineum]

>it suggests that systemic factors play into this

No it doesn't. This is a false dichotomy. It can be any number of things, including something systemic, but only one explanation of many is eliminated. All that it suggests is that interviewers don't discriminate (against women).