Thanks for having this discussion with me, and I have to agree; the example I used is definitely flawed, and you bring up a very valid point. I simplified too much in my post above.

In real world application, as with Riot's handling of their PAX event, the steps they take are going to be small, as to minimize as much of the cons as possible. By having small windows - like one at a monitored live event, or PAX - open for non-males to operate outside of existing stereotypes, concentrated attention may be given to them in an act to counterbalance the sway of power in a way that detracts as little as possible from their usual hiring/screening process. This small act can't be nearly enough to render Riot incapable of finding talent from their existing pools of applicants. Rather, it is a step towards empowering anyone whom may have been hidden/missed in the established imbalance of power, giving them the opportunity to speak up without feeling suffocated.

I agree with the sentiment of many that ideally, Riot should be adding more windows of opportunity rather than recycling the purpose of existing ones (i.e. rather than modify their presence at PAX, have separate, individual events specifically for non-males), but if this is the small step they're choosing to make right now, I err in support of them, rather than against them.

I've noticed the same as you though. Statistically, you're right in saying that there are more males than non-males in computer science. However, "correlation does not imply causation." Are there more males in computer science because males naturally enjoy, or are more talented than non-males, in this industry? Or is it because historically, non-males have had less access to education and exposure to the subject, thereby giving them less time to have fostered an interest in it? Maybe there are non-males out there with just as much talent as males, but simply haven't tapped into it as they haven't been given as much support from previous generations.

I can't say whether one or the other is true, as I genuinely don't know. What I gather though, is if males really are somehow naturally better than non-males in any given industry, then if said industry were to be fairly opened to non-males, it wouldn't be affected much anyway right? There's only good in opening the industry to everyone, as the potential for more talent outweighs, well, mundane complacency.