Suppose that both boys' and girls' potential to be good coders are normally distributed. It doesn't matter what the means or variances are of those distributions, really.
Suppose also that due to the structure of how children are socialized and educated, the top (say) 15 percentile of boys end up with training in coding and "the chance" to make it, but only the top 5 percentile of girls.
It is not hard to see how this would lead to an inefficient outcome where we are missing out on some great coders, even leaving aside the aspect in which this situation is "unfair" to the girls.
It is in the spirit of this hypothetical that I judge the aims of these female-targeted programs and female-only competitions, and I think that on balance they are a very good idea. Draining resources from a gender-neutral competition to promote a female-only one is thus only superficially sexist. When the unseen effects are accounted for, it may bring greater balance and efficiency to the field.
Suppose also that due to the structure of how children are socialized and educated, the top (say) 15 percentile of boys end up with training in coding and "the chance" to make it, but only the top 5 percentile of girls.
It is not hard to see how this would lead to an inefficient outcome where we are missing out on some great coders, even leaving aside the aspect in which this situation is "unfair" to the girls.
It is in the spirit of this hypothetical that I judge the aims of these female-targeted programs and female-only competitions, and I think that on balance they are a very good idea. Draining resources from a gender-neutral competition to promote a female-only one is thus only superficially sexist. When the unseen effects are accounted for, it may bring greater balance and efficiency to the field.