Only if by "most of the subjects" you mean "engineering and CS", which, along with physics, are the entire male bastion of science. Every other scientific field does far better, including pure math, chemistry, neuroscience, astronomy (as Pike notes in this piece), and molecular biology, where women make up (wait for it) over 50% of PhDs granted every year.

First, name calling doesn't make your argument any more credible.

Second, you're still just avoiding the question. The idea that there is an intrinsic gender difference driving gender disparity in tech has a huge hurdle to clear, which is that the same disparity does not exist in other STEM fields. Even the STEM fields that have gender parity problems don't have it as bad as CS does.

In order to compose a persuasive argument that gender disparity is due simply to benign preference that is intrinsic to the field of technology, you have to identify attributes of technology that serve as evidence for those preferences. None have been provided anywhere on this thread, just the vague idea that women don't like computers but do like actuarial science, molecular biology, and abstract algebra.

> First, name calling doesn't make your argument any more credible.

It explains your position. Being meta isn't name-calling. Or if it is it's on the same level of Nietzsche saying philosophers derive philosophy from who they are.

2) You've listed three such subjects yourself: CS, engineering, physics. Not such a high hurdle when there are multiple elements in the set. Which you left out. Strawman. Or is it OK to be dishonest in your arguments, and then claim I have a lack of rigour?

> you have to identify attributes of technology that serve as evidence for those preferences

No I don't.

I can say males & females have preferences for different activities, therefore it's plausible that they have a preference for one job over another.

I could point to Sweden and say a country with the least inequality has the largest differences in occupation.

There's no way to be more definitive without additional information. Thus, my position is, it's unclear what's creating the differences in a number of fields. It could be biological, or it could be systematic discrimination (which is falsified somewhat by Sweden). So, I lean towards biological differences.

I understand your position as:

There are no preference differences in most 'high-status' jobs, therefore there are no preference differences universally.

That doesn't jive with Sweden. And isn't self-evident.

You demand proof that a number of fields are different in a way which is unattractive to women. How about you supply proof that they're the same?!

Paraphrasing:

"Computers are different from all the rest of science. That's why there's so few women in the field."

How are computers different from the rest of science?

"They just are!"

That's not an argument.

"You're a dishonest jerk!"

I think I understand where you're coming from now.

I get concerned when my interlocutor says something ridiculous (IMO!). I think it may be a pattern to get out of the debate; when things aren't going well.

I'm genuinely interested in integrating ideas. It may get rough. But that's the war of ideas.

Computers aren't science. Computers compute. Science seeks to error correct toward truth.

I've laid out my logic. If you don't understand any of it, I can expand. If you're unwilling to understand it, that's on you.

You've addressed none of my points. And made no attempt to rephrase my actual position.

If you don't like me saying you are dishonest in your arguments don't be dishonest in your arguments—or explain how you weren't being dishonest.

> I think I understand where you're coming from now.

Do you? I want to critique your arguments, your epistemology, and the way you argue.

You've tried to make it look like I'm making untenable claims, can't justify what I've said, and then an insult for a cherry on top.

Critique what I've said, not some strawman dialogue.