Normally I would say a published study but I have seen so many studies that had a horrible methodology, where the data was twisted to show something that it didn't (like this NPR study or the famous 1/4 of every women is raped at university) or where the authors plain went ahead and lied.

At a minimum for anything to be convincing it would have to show why there were less women who start studying computer science than men and that same thing can't be why there are more women who chooses to become nurses than there are men who choose to become nurses (since that something would then be either biological or societal in either case it wouldn't be an issue with our field). Depending on the specifics, I reserve the right to raise further objections.

What kind of training do you have in sociological research? I mean, you obviously consider yourself qualified to assess study methodology. I'm curious about why.

Hey, downvoters, what exactly is contentious about asking this guy--and I have no idea who he is except that he's widely dismissive of published science--about his background or training?

If we weren't talking about something as hot-button a topic as sexism in tech, but someone was all "tiny invisible biting demons? I just don't know about this so-called germ theory...", wouldn't it be fair to ask, what's their background in medical research?

>If we weren't talking about something as hot-button a topic as sexism in tech, but someone was all "tiny invisible biting demons? I just don't know about this so-called germ theory...", wouldn't it be fair to ask, what's their background in medical research?

Medicine makes concrete, testable predictions that are used every day. Sociology isn't there yet. Sociology, to me, lies somewhere between theology and medicine on the credibility scale. I wouldn't expect an atheist to educate herself on the finer points of of the Trinity and the Holy Ghost before taking her opinion on modern American Christianity seriously, for example.