No, you missed the other part of it that I explicitly mentioned. It’s not just about the hiring of the job but the space between any two milestones in the job.

It’s all well if we’re hiring tons of diverse juniors. But if we push them out unknowingly before they grow their careers ,we’re not really helping that much

If someone doesn't like playing the flute, and thus doesn't practice playing the flute, are they going to have the same chances at a blind flute audition as someone who's practiced their whole life? Is that evidence that the audition is biased? If someone grows up in poverty and has to work and thus has no time to play to flute we can recognize the disadvantage of poverty, but that doesn't make the blind audition biased either. The disadvantage stems from the lack of time to play the flute, not the audition process.

If we're talking about the tech specifically, there's compelling evidence that poverty and lack of education attainment is a barrier for BIPOC people entering tech. But it's exceededingly hard to make that argument for women's underrepresented. Women are actually overrepresented in university. There's a strong argument to be made that women actually have more opportunity to enter tech than men. Rates of harassment in tech are actually lower than on plenty of female-dominated industries like education and administration [1]. The claim that women are being "pushed out" lacks a lot of substance.

1. https://www.workingnowandthen.com/blog/workplace-sexual-hara...

Again, you’re missing the point of demographic attrition or inequity of promotion over a career and are focusing on entrance alone. Your link also only talks about sexual harassment, not harassment in general.

Instead of focusing on just women, extend it to any demographic.

The issue of attrition/inequity in minorities (whatever they may be) within a workplace is easily trackable within companies by looking at the makeup at various seniority milestones.

Again, the few companies that publish this data (Apple and Netflix come first to mind) show there’s inequity in the approaches that exist , but most importantly it also shows that you can’t just view total makeup as the metric but need to break it down into career milestones , and across corporate divisions to really understand the problem space.

Again: equality doesn’t start and end at hiring.

https://www.apple.com/diversity/

https://jobs.netflix.com/inclusion

You continue to assume that anything other than identical outcomes is evidence of some sort of bias or discrimination. Men are more likely to be convicted of murder than women. Is this a bias that needs to be corrected? Or maybe men are more likely to commit murder?

At my previous workplace we instituted minimum representation quotas for underrepresented demographics (we used euphemism for them, of course, "equity standards" and "inclusion targets"). The hiring rates increased, but then so did attrition rates. Similar things happened, but in reverse, when California banned racial discrimination in state universities. Admission rates for underrepresented minorities went down, but then the graduation rates rose. Perhaps increase attrition isn't solved by pursuing identical outcomes, it's solved by instituting blind hiring akin to blind orchestra auditions.

Sigh, I have never said equal outcome. I have gone out of my way to explicitly talk about consistent outcomes however , and where a discrepancy is found, to understand why.

That men are found more guilty of murder is irrelevant to this discussion . The only relevant discussion is whether men are more likely to be found guilty of murder for a similar crime. The former is not bias, the latter is. However the former may be caused by systemic biases that put men in more likely scenarios to commit violent crimes. This is all high level of nuances that need to be understood, versus just saying “this is the way because it’s the way”

You keep fixating on very broad strokes, especially gender. You keep also missing the point of the not just focusing on intake. I’ve spelled that out multiple times, but you keep returning to intake.

There isn’t a point to continuing this discussion because you aren’t willing to even address the actual point of the discussion.

Gender is just one example of disparities that exist for non-biased reasons. You have indeed used unequal outcomes as evidence of disparities, in fact your repeat it in this very comment:

> I have gone out of my way to explicitly talk about consistent outcomes however, and where a discrepancy is found, to understand why.

My point is that the burden of proof is on the person alleging discrimination to prove that an inconsistent outcome stems from bias. You've concluded that this disparities means underrepresented groups are bing "pushed out" on account of this unequal outcome.

This is a big leap in logic, and instead of actually trying to substantiate your claims you're saying I'm not addressing your point. I fully acknowledge your point: some other discrimination outside the scope of the hiring process, or whatever else we're talking about, is having an effect. And my point is that you're merely postulating this as fact and doing nothing to substantiate this statement.

What am I missing? You say I'm missing your point, so please explain what I'm missing.