curious what you mean. i dont actually take any side on the original question. i dont really know enough to have an informed opinion - and im a bit skeptical one could prove anything given the confounding variables
but the idea that you cant even a-politically pose a question about biology - i dont really get the logic there. seems antiscientific
Issue is when MAGA people (Like Blow) say "women are biologically inclined towards X", it doesn't come from a place of geniune scientific curiosity, but rather a way to advance their misogynistic agenda. There is nothing you could ever say that would change their "opinion" on the matter.
Truth is, programming was women-dominated in its inception, but was taken over by men when programming the computer became more prestigious. Whatever biological factors at play here, they're completely overridden by sociological factors.
I was just speaking generally, I also don't have a side there. But for clarity, what I meant is that templates to the tune of "[subset of people with X characteristic] are more / less prone to [Y characteristic]" can construct blatantly false sentences, and also sentences that, irrespective of whether they are true (or that they are falsifiable at all, as you add), have a heavy political penalty.
I also don't think that's bad - you can say blatantly racist things with that template, and I'm ok with those things not allowed to be said in lots of contexts.
The idea that there could be biological dispositions to using a computer, the least natural thing I could think off, is well and truly absurd. Anyone still "interested" in this topic is coming from a place of unsubstantiated vice signalling, and completely uninterested in hearing any actual biologist's take on the subject, in my experience.
Let's not forget that the first generation of programmers was mostly women, until the job became high-status enough that men could take over. Takeaway: it's all bullshit.
It's really quite funny too, because women were a huge population of programmers and computer science graduates all the way up to the mid 1980s, when the ratios began flipping in favor of men. The biological argument would assume that either something changed biologically from 1980s onwards to make women less predisposed to be programmers, or (the more usual argument I see) 'that they were just doing the gruntwork' which usually exposes them as who they are.
Not defending the guy, but he's possibly on the autistic spectrum, given he grinds solo on his projects for decades and stuff.
He may perceive his own appetite for programming as being linked to some form of autism. Because, well, computers are not people, so it's nice to avoid people.
Given that there is a proven gender discrepancy in the distribution of autistic disorders, it's not completely absurd to imagine that men could biologically be more attracted to working with computers than women.
Without wanting to go too far out of my depth, I have read a few times now that a lot of the perceived growth in autism rates could be attributed to our society pushing people into adopting behaviors previously attributed to "actual" autism. Spending time on the computer as a kid (playing video games, etc.) is still mostly a boy activity, because of societal reasons, and can certainly lead to adopting these behaviors later in life in some cases (not making any value judgment here). I would be willing to bet that, had programming stayed a women-dominated position, we'd have more women than men on the spectrum today.
I'm telling you: I'm out of my depth here. I don't need opinion on gay conversion therapy though, it's been shown repeatedly to be completely ineffective (and extremely cruel too). What's your point?
Careful though, I'm not telling you that playing video games as a kid makes you autistic, I'm telling you that doing so can make an individual adopt behaviors previously thought to define/be exclusive to autism.
Could there be a difference in the social reward centers of the brain, based on gender, possibly from the biological necessities of having children? We know reward centers are not the same, between the sexes, since heterosexual attraction is the norm (and why gay conversion therapy can't work). Some brain structure and function is hard coded.
Could these hormone influenced reward centers differ in social rewards, or for human interaction? Computers are not human. Maybe [1], but don't expect much research proving it one way or the other.
How would that explain the very basic fact that most programmers were women in the early days of computing? It can't. The most important factors deciding which gender is most represented in programming are sociological.
You need to look at the history of it all. There wasn't the freedom back then, that we have now, where women could choose their profession based on personal interest. Back then programmers were women. It wasn't considered a man's job [1].
When you look at the history of it all, it clearly shows that men have always been misogynistic bigots oppressing and driving women out of educational opportunities and professional careers, and they still all, even more so today than ten years ago, due to the rise of GamerGate, MAGA and Project 2025.
In case you are ignorant. This is about the "things vs. people" finding. You can e.g. find it linked on wikipedia in the "Sex differences in humans" article.
If it's biological or not is kind of hard to prove without unethical experiments.
I am not disputing that there exists differences in vocational choices between genders. Programming as a discipline is a textbook sociological example though: it was women's work when it was thought as "gruntwork", and then became men's work when it got prestigious enough, almost overnight (in historical scales). If ever there exists some biological predispositions towards programming, they are largely overriden by sociological factors, to the point that using biology to explain why programmers are mostly men today is truly ridiculous.
