even if all of those problems would be fixed, there would
be a gender disparity in choice of occupations.
...
it would for most professions be much closer to 50/50 than
nowadays, that's true, but it would not be at 50/50.
1. I'm pretty sure reasonable people consider something "close enough" (like 46/54) to be gender parity. I understand that you read the statement as being strictly 50/50 but prose != computer program; maybe read what the GP was trying to say when reading.
2. On what basis are you assuming there would be a gender disparity, all other things being equal? (There isn't.) Can all other things be equal? Probably not perfectly, which is why most would consider "close enough" parity to be a win, but we're certainly not close now.
re: 2, and please forgive the slight necroposting.
That men and women might be biologically predisposed to find certain pursuits more attractive than others should not be controversial.
But even if we cast biology aside, and assume (against all evidence) that differences in preferences are due solely to socialization, is that bad? Is it bad that women feel more drawn to caregiving careers and men to analytical ones? Even if, which I do not for a moment believe, these differences in behaviour and preference were due solely to socialization, so what? As long as people are happy and fulfilled, why would that socialization be a wrong that needs righting?
2. On what basis are you assuming there would be a gender disparity, all other things being equal? (There isn't.) Can all other things be equal? Probably not perfectly, which is why most would consider "close enough" parity to be a win, but we're certainly not close now.