Australia for a while had it mandatory that genders be concealed in government hiring practices, because they found that they were bringing in for interviews 60% men and only 40% women, and assumed biases. After removing sex signifiers, they brought in 70%+ men for interviews: The mere fact they were women was worth an insanely huge valuation for job candidacy, and losing that meant they were, impartially and without any biases at all, deemed inferior in the open and free market of ideas. (They removed the no-sex-mention policy afterwards, since it was counter to their goal of 50/50, the bias favored their desired result too much to keep it away).
So there's a real-world example of exactly as you say: Tons of industries would have very different results if there was no hard-carries going on.
This would apply to a TON of industries if the same method was employed..
Though I think that productivity and reproductive rates would increase a hundred fold if we removed HR as a profession so that might be my bias.
Australia for a while had it mandatory that genders be concealed in government hiring practices, because they found that they were bringing in for interviews 60% men and only 40% women, and assumed biases. After removing sex signifiers, they brought in 70%+ men for interviews: The mere fact they were women was worth an insanely huge valuation for job candidacy, and losing that meant they were, impartially and without any biases at all, deemed inferior in the open and free market of ideas. (They removed the no-sex-mention policy afterwards, since it was counter to their goal of 50/50, the bias favored their desired result too much to keep it away).
So there's a real-world example of exactly as you say: Tons of industries would have very different results if there was no hard-carries going on.