[proc0]

> The gender gap in urban cycling worldwide is staggering.

Why is this an inherently good objective to pursue? Are there studies showing that it would be 50/50 if it weren't for those listed factors, or did they find a few examples supporting the hypothesis and then it's all about equality of outcome and shaping society according to a biased perspective?-- that might not actually reflect individual choices in reality.

In some cases like earning wages, I can see some form of argument for equality of outcome, but is this supposed to be applied to literally everything? 50/50 going to the beach, 50/50 enjoy chococlate the same way, 50/50 split in obesity rates, etc.

[defrost]

> Why is this an inherently good objective to pursue?

In the joint opinon of the three authors:

    This is not healthy. While cycling is good for everyone, women stand to gain more because they typically exercise less than men.

   Women are also at higher risk of osteoporosis, arthritis, anxiety, depression and various autoimmune diseases. So they need more of the type of exercise like cycling that builds bone density, strengthens muscles, helps manage weight and improves mood.

[proc0]

What I'm pointing at is the focus on the ratio between men and women. The article isn't just talking about how women should exercise more, it's explicitly pointing out that there is a gap between men and women and that somehow closing the gap is inherently a good objective to focus on.

Even in your quote:

> women stand to gain more because they typically exercise less than men.

Why this focus? Why not just tell women to exercise more, and men should be completely irrelevant here.