[ivanca]

>Over the course of history, far more bad has been wrought by assuming differences were innate than assuming they were the result of bias.

An obvious counterexample would be sexual orientation: believing that being gay is a choice is used by many as an argument to justify discrimination.

[thatthatis]

While it is a good point, I don't think that's directly analogous: I was talking about population statistics and biases that lead to different outcomes in different groups.

Two similar but not identical dichotomies: * A population difference is due to innate differences vs a difference is due to systemic biases * An individual difference is due to innate makeup vs a difference is due to individual choices

The question: Why is the % of people with X characteristic in Y profession lower than the average. Applying my proposed standard above to that question, assume differences are due to biases until sumarily proven, we still aren't encouraging or abiding discrimination when X characteristic is sexual orientation.