It was not intended as an insult, so apologies. But I still stand by my statements because I believe them to be true.
Other things that will lead to clearer views on this is your overall software skills relative to other people in the same position, but such ratings are also colored with the lens of bias.
As it stands though, the deal is still obviously uneconomical and therefore a charity or a gift to you. Nothing wrong with this and it wasn't intended as an insult.
>There are also examples of men at my company making fairly similar changes across organizations
If that's the case present your data! This will definitely help change my view point.
>I'd love for you to take a minute and consider why you approached my story with the preconceived notion that I've only gotten this opportunity because I'm a woman.
I have. It is not preconceived. The hypothesis was made based off of available data. Like I said, the business deal the company made with you is not economical, so there must be another reason why the company gave you such a one sided deal when they can get a better deal.
My assumption is that part of it is because of your sex and your looks. This goes inline with my anecdotal experience of working with women in engineering.
If your saying the exact reason why you were hired over say a new CS grad or boot camper is because of your domain knowledge and UX experience, then sure I grant you that as a major possibility. However it does not discount the possibility that what I said is true. You wouldn't know because you manager either gave you that deal subconsciously or he won't admit it.
There's really no avenue to determine either argument definitively. I propose not continuing.
As a side note, I've worked hard to get where I am right now. And no company paid me to learn software on the job. If they did it would be an act of charity and I would be grateful to them if they did.