It is believable that there are sex and age based differences in the distribution of risk taking as a result of both culture and biology. Bias for or against an individual based on these tendencies is wrong when used to pre-judge that person.
What about the outcome bias for people or groups with differing risk tendencies?
Is it morally necessary to compensate for different risk strategies? Which ones and to what degree? Which sources of cause should get this privilege and which shouldn't?
There is a vocal group that insists that any disparity in outcome needs to be corrected, at least for their preferred groups.
There is another that insists that it is immoral to punish (in any way) the hard work and other characteristics that lead to success outcomes.
No, I'm not making any overarching claims to be taken up and enforced by a government or similar entity. And diversity of most sorts has value in a population.
Actually, my biggest take away from all this is that it is even more important to stop framing things as zero-sum competitions and more as collaborations where an individual can find a space fitting of their grit, skills and interests.