Again, some interesting points, some of which I can see the validity of and some which I wouldn't agree with.

Seeking an equal balance (as the football example follows) is, in my opinion, unrealistic and detrimental. It totally overrides the elements of choice and luck. I have no idea why there have been so few black goalkeepers, but I think we both agree that there are no barriers to black players in football. I'd say it's choice, and luck (for the players who have the skill and aptitude to play in goal).

Let's turn this on its head. Why are there less white basketball players? Or sprinters? I recall studies suggesting that black muscle mass leans towards more fast twitch muscle fibres, which may be a factor, if it's true. But the only thing that should matter is ability and performance. How would standards drop if there had to be equal representation?

Looking at my industry, some of the most powerful figures are women. There isn't equal representation but what would it achieve if, for example, extremely capable people were replaced with less capable people, just to balance numbers?

Why are there more male business owners? It's just the way that the cookie crumbled, but it's also changing. Many females are starting businesses, but it takes time to grow, establish, and reach the top tier. Maybe historically men have been bigger risk takers, but history can't be changed and to try and forcefully fix the landscape now would be dangerous. Evolution is how change should happen, otherwise who decides when the balance is right? And why should there be an exact balance?

I'd suggest listening to the talks given by Jordan Peterson on this, and and other aspects of equality. He soundly debunks the feminist agenda and in so doing offers a wholly different perspective on equality, citing research and examples.

By the way, it's good to have a civil discussion and to exchange opposing opinions without the usual escalation into abuse and vitriol. Thanks for that.

Just so I’m 100% clear, I am no advocate of quota systems or artificially altering demographics. For any role, a competent person has to be selected.

I’ve long been an advocate that you change the demographic at the top by changing it at the bottom and letting that change filter through.

I would also reiterate that any choice we make is shaped by the world we live in.

I share your belief that there are some biological reasons why certain demographics excel in certain fields (such as the fast twitch fibres helping sprinters and low oxygen levels helping distance runners). But I can’t see a biological reason why men would take greater risks.

I *can* see a societal norm that men are risk takers and women are meant to be more risk averse.

I’ve read a couple of interviews with Peterson and to be frank found him abhorrent. Fully prepared to see however that that’s probably because he challenged my world view. And also those of the magazines the interviews featured in.

I’d also add that we aren’t just discussing the feminist agenda. Most of the subjects we have discussed impacts all minorities negatively.

I think we can both agree that we’re not going to change one another’s mind but a good debate is always fun!