If you select people totally at random (no discrimination!) from the population of people with >130 IQ to work at Facebook and the sd for men in the general population is 11 IQ points instead of 10 for women, you'll wind up with a 70% male workforce at Facebook.
Similarly if men had a mean IQ of 101 instead of 99 for women, Facebook would have a 66% male workforce.
From R:
women <- pnorm(130, mean = 100, sd = 10, lower.tail = FALSE)
men <- pnorm(130, mean = 100, sd = 11, lower.tail = FALSE)
scaling <- 100/(women+men)
men * scaling
[1] 70.28561
women * scaling
[1] 29.71439
women <- pnorm(130, mean = 99, sd = 10, lower.tail = FALSE)
men <- pnorm(130, mean = 101, sd = 10, lower.tail = FALSE)
scaling <- 100/(women+men)
men * scaling
[1] 65.8503
women * scaling
[1] 34.1497
Granted, the NBA is entertainment which complicates things, but the same line of thinking probably applies to the Navy Seals. IMO, whenever you see a biased rule you need to deside if it's useful before you can view it as egalitarian.
In other words - just because an industry is not 50/50 men/women, doesn't mean there's sexual discrimination going on.
Even if the differences themselves are small, the very fact that they're there mean that women have comparative advantage over men in some areas, while men have that advantage over women in other. We exploit that concept in international trade, and yet many find it wrong to exploit it at the society level.
The question we should be asking is: which "social biases" arise from comparative advantage of sexes? Maybe they're ok and we should leave those biases be, while removing those that don't give any utility? Hard-equalizing everything (by e.g. pushing for 50/50 ration of genders in every industry) seems to be an outcome worse for everybody.