> "we shouldn't do anything to increase diversity, because women are biologically different and hence they won't be interested."

This is not the argument. You should be ashamed of yourself for behaving like this.

So what is the argument?

If 80% of candidates were left handed, no one would think twice about 80% of hires being left handed. Ditto for female candidates. Ditto again for male candidates for relatively undesireable jobs. But once the topic of discussion is male candidates for highly paid jobs, the logic completely changes.

Pretend this isn't happening as much as you like, it's no skin off my nose.

And yet, that has changed over time, implying that there's definitely a big non-biological component to the ratio.

> If 80% of candidates were left handed

Right, because a biological characteristic that literally doesn't have any effect in professional careers is exactly comparable to a biological characteristic you say does make a difference. Talk about comparing apples with "things I say are an orange, but let's pretend I'm saying are an apple for me to draw this completely irrelevant analogy."

> it's no skin off my nose.

Of course it is not, and that's why you can be so blasé about the whole thing.

Which OP and I are not denying. Such a simple logical error I would almost expect among the civilian population, it's odd when software professionals on HN seem to completely loose their logical faculties when certain topics are discussed.

> Right, because....

See above comment.