I was taking issue with the assertion that there is no concrete evidence that CS presents an inhospitable environment for women. Yes, it bears more study, but there's clearly an inhospitable environment.
The inference of a particular place being "inhospitable" suggests that there is a large percentage minority at least that is being prevented from engaging in the experience because the current set up forces them to disengage.
I'm not seeing that. And as much as I wouldn't suggest that a class on French Fashion trends not need to over-accommodate the single male that is obsessed with this, I don't see any pressing needs to do this here either.
I suspect if we could find a way to teach kids a little programming in grade school we would to them and society a world of good... but as far as I can tell we haven't yet been able to find a way to teach programming at that level.
I'm not, I'm suggesting that a set-up that prefers those with a natural inclination or enjoyment/ability of a particular field should not be undermined in favour of those with a possible passing fancy.
If the system is detrimental to those with skill/enjoyment/inclination based on a particular set of their shared minority traits, this might be a problem in need of correction.
Unlike French Fashion trends, programming is an important driver of our society,
Whether something is important to our society or not should make no difference in correcting inequities in opportunity.
There's no way of knowing that when most women do not even take an introductory programming course.
The assumption here is that there is a large pool of women waiting to take courses that are being discouraged. I see no evidence of that at all, and that's what I'm questioning.
It's only fine if it's true that women would neither enjoy it nor be good at it.