I'm not sure what you mean by gender bias, but I am pretty sure, all things being equal, I'd likely let to a woman than a man, even if I were a different sex. All things being equal --income, social traits, etc.
I think guys in these cases would be at a disadvantage.
I wouldn't suspect feminists of wanting to get an advantage, but I suspect they might be reacting to sensationalist and distorted statistics at times. Just because there are different numbers of males and females in some positions does not imply that discrimination is the cause.
Sure, but everyone seems to be assuming that it's systematically unfavorable towards women solely based on the fact that women make up less than parity.
That claim only works if one assumes that any disparity is the result of systematic bias.
It's an error to assume any opinion is always right. Ultimately institutional sex discrimination is counter-productive to human life, so you will generally see a higher quality of life, lower violence, better health outcomes, reduced chemical toxicity, in places where both sexes have equal social mobility.
"and realize that sex is probably not a significant contributor to outcome"
It is sort of a doubled edged sword, if race and gender have no significant effect on outcome, then in a way that could be used as a justification for blocking those people from said positions. On the other hand, if it's the opposite then is purely superficial.
On the same token, a specifically male only group tends to get crucified. It's more of a confusion of double standards, perceived or otherwise. Sure, most groups end up de-facto male only, but you never see groups actively advertised as male only.
I think not many people would oppose that statement. Where opinions differ is whether one or the other sex is given an advantage in a particular subject/area of life.
reply