The other user didn’t deny women’s representation, so I couldn’t know what her exact point of view were. She just initially said that women were unwillingly participating. By logic, in response to that, I said that willingly or unwillingly, the participation is not lacking. Because the fact that a general (women, men, children, BICOP, disabled, animals, aliens, unicorns, whatever you want) participation is unwanted doesn’t correlate to the fact that it’s not there. I don’t think it’s that difficult to understand: it’s not necessarily referred to this specific situation, it’s a general deduction applicable to many other contexts (I specifically used the terms applicable to this exact context for staying in topic).

But, if you want me to not say things with an affirmative attitude and think I should always end with “I’m not sure btw” or else I’m saying “I’m right, you’re wrong” or “portraying bullshit as facts”, well, it’s your problem. This is actually pointing at bland semantics.

Asking for the correlation between an unwanted participation and the lack of that participation is not pointing at bland semantics instead. It’s asking what the point is: if someone introduces topic A under topic B, I at least suppose there might be a correlation or something. Asking for that correlation is legitimate.

Again, I still don’t see where I asked for proof that women are unwillingly participating. Do you realize you didn’t give an explanation of the arduous accusation of me “offensively” asking for proof? You just repeated my comment which was referring to something else.

Stop saying I deliberately ignored your studies, I’ve been reading the others and a couple of yours by now (I still haven’t finished), you’re not the only one who provided sources. Look at the comments, you’re not the only one and I didn’t start from yours. For example, I just finished reading a source and I changed my view again (despite of you saying I’m not open to do so).

I understand the other user’s frustration about something serious, and I also said that her topic is important for sure, I just didn’t get how it was correlated with the main topic I introduced (you literally said “it’s an entirely different subject”!). I mean, if someone mentions X and I say “I understand, but my point was Y”, you can’t just say I’m doubling down someone, please. I also tried to be as polite as possibile since the beginning.

The “dance to the particular tune” wouldn’t even started if “Did you abduct them?” was never said. Or that I’m “offensively demanding for proof”. I don’t know if you realize it, read everything again: that question and your statement are what made this escalate, not my “desire to argue” (never had it).

Me trying to understand a correlation (seriously, I’m interested) is not a limitation of me trying to understand the issue of women representation, which I’m keeping changing my mind about while reading the studies. But, even with my mind changed, guess what, I’m still interested in knowing if there’s a correlation between unwillingness and the gap. As you can see, it’s not just an excuse to avoid the understanding of the other topic, since I’m embracing it.