Why do you say that? I have explained why the 'top' people are not necessarily picked on merit.

How does a quota stop you from doing that? Not only are you able to pick from the 50% best male surgeons, you're also able to pick from the 50% best women surgeons!

I ran a cost benefit analysis of further engagement with you and found it came at a huge net loss.

Lol no, I’m not going to do that.

Then you haven't sufficiently tried to engage with the argument to understand it.

Ima just copy and paste what I said earlier;

Sometimes there are institutional effects that unfairly bias against one gender. As an example, C-level execs were historically men. They tended to pick replacements based on people they knew or had mentored - who typically were also men. It was much harder for women to both get into that level, and then be treated as equals within that level, creating a disincentive for other women to try and reach that level. This naturally means that men were more likely to be C-level execs and a gender imbalance persists not based on competence, but based on institutional culture.

That's what quotas are there for. They're to turboboost the process of removing institutional disincentives to gender equality.

Ah, so you assume that women aren't competent enough for those positions.