It is possible. But it's also possible that it's not skewed, or even skewed the other way. It's as though someone should investigate this question before embarking on programs to shift the distribution to arbitrary places.
> It's as though someone should investigate this question before embarking on programs to shift the distribution to arbitrary places.
If the status quo is 90/10 or worse, I don't agree: 50/50 is the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis can certainly be disproven, but the amount of evidence needed to hold a belief that 50/50 is probably correct is much smaller than the amount of evidence needed to hold a belief that 90/10 is probably correct. I don't think the right approach is "We should let the status quo stay indefinitely until we've convinced ourself of what the right number is" - if we have evidence that the status quo is potentially right, that evidence should be plenteous and easy to gather.
(That said, I do agree that programs focused on improving "the pipeline" and getting more girls interested in STEM are misguided and it would be better to focus on removing the barriers that cause women already interested in STEM careers to leave. But that's a little bit of a different subject.)
I said that someone should investigate it. As in, actively. 50/50 is a null hypothesis. Another perfectly reasonable null hypothesis is the status quo.
For instance, do you know that the proportion of female software engineers is approximately the same as the proportion of females that pass the AP computer science exam in high school? This implies strongly that if there is some effect that's shifting the distribution against women, it happens before high school. That is to say, it has nothing to do with workplace culture or discriminatory hiring practices. Of course, that doesn't mean that those things aren't important - they are. But they likely aren't causing under-representation of women in CS.
