Men are about 10 times as likely to be injured n a workplace accident [0][1]. Maybe this has something to do with why safety equipment is built for men. Deaths are doubtless increasing in women due to the fact that they are only now entering these fields. The military also plays a role, I'm sure, as they design lots of safety gear and were some of the first to develop much of it.

On the point of nail salons, it is worth mentioning that cosmetics are tested for people who wear the dry product less than people who breathe the solvents all day. This is because the average consumer simply won't.

On the carpentry point, how is the equipment designed for men? I don't know if this is wrong or not, but would appreciate hearing more from some body who knows more.

Cement: it's more efficient to bag it in larger quantities; smaller bags will drive up costs. Also, if women will move less cement, I would be more likely to hire a man.

For bricks, it's also important for them to be thick enough. And again, it's not worth re-standardizing for people who may output less.

Architect stuff: A1 is a paper size; we would have to re-standardize paper to change this.

On PPE, it doesn't fit a lot of men either. I honestly think many of us are just less conscious about how stuff fits, for better or for worse. I'm very slim, so many things are ridiculously baggy.

On the bathrooms: I thought many people wanted "gender-neutral" bathrooms. Is this no longer the case? And if I'm trying to move as many people as possible, urinals are much, much faster. Equal floor space is just fine; the goal isn't necessarily to move the same number of people but many people.

Phones: not everybody likes these; I think it's a dumb design trend and will die out. The iPhone XS is smaller, as is the SE. The camera thing? My S7 has a moveable button. I don't think phone sizing is sexist.

On the voice recognition, this may be due to the way younger women in particular speak. Has this been broken down by age? Younger women tend to drop into "vocal fry", swing words up at the end, and other non-standard things that make speech irregular and harder to understand. I guess more training of models is needed, but there has been a significant shift in the way women speak in particular, arguably because they tend to speak in a more dynamic fashion any way. The anecdote of the Volvo is quite probably regression to the mean.

Siri: have you ever thought they are possibly avoiding "adult topics"? They probably don't want such things in her vocabulary so she can't be tricked into using them. It is possible they specifically excluded these, and the others were passed to google search.

Routing: how in the world are mapping companies supposed to measure safety? That would be a massive feature and would require aggregating huge amounts of data. It would be a massive undertaking.

Car crashes: women are on average smaller and more likely to have weaker bones (as noted by the article) (especially as they are more likely to have bone loss). This seems to be a likely reason. Does the article wish to change to a female-dominant alignment which puts men at a higher risk of injury? This is still a bad idea, as men are more likely to be in car crashes (as the article notes).

With that said, it's stupid not to have a crash test dummy that represents a lady.

Pregnant women are an edge case, and are less than 2 percent of the population at any given time.

[0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevore/2018/12/19/fatal-em...

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25641425

[2] https://www.quora.com/How-many-women-are-pregnant-in-the-USA...