Sure. And there are fewer full-blown autistic people than there are people "on the spectrum". But it's a lot easier to study autism by looking at severe cases than it is to try to figure out what's biologically different about people who are "a little aspy".

92% of veterinarians are female

98.8% (!) of preschool and kindergarten teachers are female

If you want to understand gender imbalance in employment, these are the obvious places to start.

> 98.8% (!) of preschool and kindergarten teachers are female

I'm fairly sure a big part of the driver for the imbalance in education is that being a teacher is one of the only ways, other than being a full-time employee (not contractor) some place like Google, to access European-like levels of parental leave, plus European-like levels of time-off, generally, which is also hugely valuable when you have kids, while also being a career in which leaving multiple times for months at a time to have kids (if you time it well with Summer, or hit up FMLA time) is minimally disruptive to one's career growth, which is unusual for non-very-rare-and-hard-to-get jobs. Plus, and this isn't to be under-appreciated, teachers are in demand everywhere, so one can gain all the above and move to (for example) let your spouse chase higher wages at a less-family-friendly job (nursing is similarly friendly in that demanded-everywhere way, and go figure, nursing is dominated by women, too).

Relatedly, teaching is also one of the most single-parenting-friendly jobs around. The pay may not be great, but you're off (more or less) when your kids are, it's stable, and it comes with benefits. Retirement, even! It may also let you do things like get a job in a good school district, while living in a worse district (cheaper housing), but send your kids to the better district you work in, which can make a huge difference if you're on a single income.

For younger grades in particular, I think it's all of the above, plus a combination of simple interest-factor, and of men fearing (not unjustly) that any interest in or affinity for young kids (who aren't relatives) will make them look extremely creepy.

That would be a great theory, except that gender segregation is similar for countries with European-like levels of parental leave.

In a Swedish study the term they used for the teacher profession was a "leaky pipe". The first year at university the teacher program is only somewhat gender segregated, but for every year that goes men either quit or refocus towards a specialty with more men. Once graduate, each year as an employed teacher the segregation rate increases with men either quitting or switching to a specialty like after-school sport.

The number 1 cause as highlighted by that study: culture fit and not feeling accepted.

I don't disagree with you, but it's notable that the gender imbalance for teachers diminishes as the kids get older.

* Preschool and kindergarten teachers 98.8% female

* Elementary and middle school teachers 79.6% female

* Secondary school teachers 58.8% female

* Postsecondary teachers 51.1% female

There's clearly a lot more going on here.

Right, preferences and "guys teaching little kids is creepy" play a role, and maybe some other stuff.

Okay yeah, that's a different issue than what I thought you meant. You're saying we should focus on the most asymmetric careers because they'll give us the best understanding of gender gaps.

That makes sense, but personally I think you should still focus on the "smaller issues" instead of just looking at the most extremes. People who are "a little aspy" may have similar biological causes as severe autism, but their social situations are much different. People with Aspergers may just require some minor accommodation to live their lives, but people with Autism may require a lot of care. The causes can be similar while the scale drastically changes the type of response.

One more to add, with enough population for you to care about:

"Driver/sales workers and truck drivers": 3.4m, 92.2% male.

Not that agree or disagree, but... Using that logic, why should we care at all. Less than 7 million out of about 170 million in the workforce. Shouldn't we be looking a other, more common jobs? (On a side note I'm surprised software devs are only 1.9 million)

There are two orders of magnitude difference between the number locomotive operators and the CEO & engineering jobs:

55k/7m = 0.8%

7m/170m = 4%

There's a legit difference between arguing about a $40k line item on a $1m house sale and a $400 line item.

What's your point? Either way we're adding up largely arbitrary line items composing a very small minority. It makes more sense to look the areas that would impact the most people. To use your analogy, who cares if the seller takes care of that $40k line item of the other ones that need work add up to $250k? Great, I have a solid roof but what about my crumbling foundation...