And I was pointing out that you were dropping the "over time" part of the equation and skirting the definition of bias. Yes, if over a large enough sample size over time things don't break down 50/50 (or 52/48 or whatever) it DOES mean there is a bias there. Then we have to explain that bias. Is it because directors are centering roles around one gender more than another? Are writers writing more characters over another? Are voters skewed one direction in ant number of ways for any number of reasons? That bias might be coming from places we don't expect but just because we don't know all that stuff yet doesn't mean we should deny it exists and avoid looking into the potential causes entirely.