> the idea that you have to be "passionate about computers" to do the job is one of those things that men have made up to exclude women.

I didn't say that they need passion. I am saying, however, that I am less likely to go into medicine because I am not interested in it. Maybe the same could be the case for women? (meaning, if there is a general trend that less women are interested, then less will join said field of work, because it is their choice not to).

> That logic implies that those women are not qualified for the job and that you could never build a gender balanced team with qualified women.

You have a good point. This sentence does have a negative connotation as you say, but it is not exclusively said. Could it also be possible that a push to hire more females (explicitly because of needed gender balance, something that is, in my opinion, contrived) has happened enough recently that people's minds go there first?

> Until we make gender balanced teams the norm people are going to keep thinking like that, which is why it is so important to take corrective action.

Interesting point. I'm not willing to say you're wrong, because you might be right. I'll admit, I thought that less women graduate with CS degrees than men though. Am I wrong? If not, how do we get more women to enter that major? And what if they don't want to simply because they're not interested?

edit: I appreciate that we can talk about this btw, and that you seem to respect my opinion. I think this is a valuable part of this discussion. Thanks.

> the idea that you have to be "passionate about computers" to do the job is one of those things that men have made up to exclude women.

I mean if you've been programming since you were 8 and consider it your identity its not that far to go into believing that anyone who is good has to have the same background. Gender doesn't have anything to do with it.

For what its worth I thought this way until it was proven otherwise to me after enough time in the industry.