No, the top poster was explaining why "female" was in the submission name (it was literally the event's name and a description of the people who were invited to speak), with the hopes that people could focus on the content.
"I'm an ardent supporter of the effort" is in specific reference to the conference, not an invitation for you to play topic-association and share your musings on what male/female ratio is appropriate in the tech industry.
It's irrelevant, but more importantly it's a fucking farce to try to hide behind a professed search for "truth" while turning an exploration of actual female experiences in the tech industry into a discussion of your thoughts on whether or not we should encourage more women to enter the tech industry. Own up to it and move on.
In thinking over the topic a bit more, as well as reading more on it, I think I've come to a more nuanced understanding about it all. It's not that people want a 50/50 split, it's that they want more women who want to be in tech, to be in tech.
I always thought it was that they wanted a 50/50 split which never made sense to me. After reading the recaps of the female attendees, it hit me.
Carry on.
As for the on-topicness of the initial post, guilty. I had just read the "no gender pay gap in software" and so my mind was in that mode.
"I'm an ardent supporter of the effort" is in specific reference to the conference, not an invitation for you to play topic-association and share your musings on what male/female ratio is appropriate in the tech industry.
It's irrelevant, but more importantly it's a fucking farce to try to hide behind a professed search for "truth" while turning an exploration of actual female experiences in the tech industry into a discussion of your thoughts on whether or not we should encourage more women to enter the tech industry. Own up to it and move on.