zlacker

While not essential, I wouldn't exactly call the gender "accidental":

> We investigated sex differences in 473,260 adolescents’ aspirations to work in things-oriented (e.g., mechanic), people-oriented (e.g., nurse), and STEM (e.g., mathematician) careers across 80 countries and economic regions using the 2018 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). We analyzed student career aspirations in combination with student achievement in mathematics, reading, and science, as well as parental occupations and family wealth. In each country and region, more boys than girls aspired to a things-oriented or STEM occupation and more girls than boys to a people-oriented occupation. These sex differences were larger in countries with a higher level of women's empowerment. We explain this counter-intuitive finding through the indirect effect of wealth. Women's empowerment is associated with relatively high levels of national wealth and this wealth allows more students to aspire to occupations they are intrinsically interested in.

Source: https://psyarxiv.com/zhvre/ (HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29040132)

>>codeth+(OP)
The "Gender Equality Paradox"... there's a fascinating episode[0] about it. It's incredible how unscientific and ideologically-motivated one side comes off in it.

0. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XsEsTvfT-M

>>codeth+(OP)
If you ask it to generate “nurse” surely the problem isn’t that it’s going to just generate women, it’s that it’s going to give you women in those Halloween sexy nurse costumes.

If it did, would you believe that’s a real representative nurse because an image model gave it to you?