So you reasoning is going like this:
1. There is problem X
2. Possible cause of problem X is the reason Y
3. In fields where we are sure reason Y is rampant, we have successfully solved problem X by attacking instances of Y
4. In the field F, we have had no comparable success doing the same, despite all efforts.
5. Therefore, it is obvious that reason Y is much worse in F than everywhere and we should double and triple and quintuple our efforts there, until there is success. Since we reached success in other fields, it is stupid to assume we can't do the same here.
Do you see a problem with this chain of thought? If not, let me apply this logic to another model:
1. Cough is frequently caused by bacterial infections.
2. Antibiotics treat bacterial infections with much success in many cases
3. In patient P, antibiotics did not lead to any improvement of his cough.
4. Obviously, we need to double, triple and quintuple antibiotics doses until P is finally healed.
I hope you realize here that maybe P has a viral infection instead, or maybe he needs to stop smoking, or maybe he has another one of the hundred of causes of cough there could be.
>you'll need to demonstrate either that it's somehow harder to write the 900th instance of the same SQL query than it is to understand supersingular curve isogenies,
What you mean by "harder"? Is it harder to lift 600lbs than to give birth to a baby? Why do you assume that the question is about "harder" and not, for example, "more pleasurable" or "more intellectually satisfying"? Maybe SQL queries just bore prospective biologists to tears?
BTW, among composers the gender balance is even worse. Is it harder to write a symphony than to decode human genome? What metrics would you use to compare them?
Maybe instead treating everything as a nail we should try and consider some alternative hypotheses than "CS and musicians hate women"? It might be more efficient than force-feeding antibiotics to somebody who does't have bacterial infection.