> To turn the empiricism around a bit: the gender disparity among those with perfect SAT Math scores is about 2:1, and is less in the whole 700-800 range. Given that most engineering programs draw from the 600-800 range, how on earth do you explain the 4:1-5:1 disparities you observe in these programs in the face of a much lower disparity in mathematical aptitude in the relevant range? Moreover, if the disparities are rooted in biology rather than sociology, how do you explain why the percentage of CS degrees awarded to women is half of what it was 30 years ago?

This is perfectly in line with the statement I made. Just because females with high SATs are more than capable of doing CS, doesn't mean they are interested in it as a career. This is most likely due to their innate predispositions for other types of work. This may be tough for lifelong programmers to understand, but the majority of computer scientists see this field as just work and nothing else. There is none of that Zuckerbergian passion that drives most programmers.

A great example is a guy like Elon Musk, vs a guy like Linus Torvalds. Both undoubtedly prodigious programmers, but one kept doing it even when he no longer hand to, and the other jumped ship onto his other, more pressing, passions.

From a personal example, a close female relative of mine is a brilliant girl who has outperformed me at every academic level. She chose to specialize in the medical field, because it suited her interests more. She is incredible at math and would have made an excellent programmer, but she just doesn't have a passion to spend the rest of her life doing it.

What my argument boils down to is this: girls and boys are biologically different, and thus they enjoy doing different things. Why are certain vocal groups trying to force them into roles which they may not desire? Equality of opportunity will not yield equality of outcomes when individual choices vary.

Edit: removed ad hominem