> Even 3% may be statistically significant so I don't see why some people feel the need to be blatantly dishonest regarding the problem.

Statistical significant doesn't mean that it is significant.

The issue isn't just about "choice" etc: it's also about how jobs that women predominantly do are lower in prestige and pay than jobs that men predominantly do.

The change in programming from being a low prestige, low salary job done by women to being a high prestige, high salary job done by men is sometimes cited an example of that. I don't know if there are flaws in that example, but I think the overall idea makes sense. I read an interesting article about this, but I don't recall the link. Sorry.

Perhaps its important to determine if there are flaws in the example before using it as an example.

Alternatively, perhaps it's worthwhile to suggest an idea that might be relevant to a topic, even if one doesn't currently have the time or inclination to explore it in depth. I mean, you're interested in the truth right? Not just the rhetoric necessary to argue a position you already hold.

But sure, go for it. Why would you want someone to suggest an alternative way to explore or think about a problem when you can respond with snark instead?

You might find life more fulfilling if you don't treat new information as inherently antagonistic.

Yes people used horrible and biased stats all the time to prove their point. And most people believe it.