> so most of us
Most of whom, and are you sure?
> but it literally makes no difference.
If it doesn't really make sense, it does make a difference, and certain wording can actually have the opposite effect and turn people away from the cause - even if they support it, like I do. I'm a huge proponent of "girls can do anything guys can do" and not pushing gender stereotypes on girls, but the GP's very presumptive wording came across as trying really hard to change the status quo, as well as exclusionary, when it could have been done much more naturally and subtly:
> "the techie niece/nephew will do it for most"
(being inclusive of both genders when obviously only the one gender, male, really reasonably applies; doesn't tend to offend anyone and brings them over to your cause because you're not making it look like you're trying to unreasonably exclude - this is probably the most ideal choice of wording)
or even just removing the "for most" (since it's completely inaccurate and very presumptive)
> "the techie niece will do it"
But I mean, techie girls do exist, but they're pretty rare. It's like saying "if most people simply asked their plumber, she'd agree to use more environmentally friendly chemical to unclog your drain". It's like really? Literally only 1.4% of plumbers are female [1], c'mon, stop trying so hard to push your agenda, it just turns people off and hurts your otherwise very worthy cause.
[1] https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm