Our first source cited personal experience of the return-to-office order's impact and told us only two men were affected, compared to 29 women. Our source made calculations about the impact using internal data, and suggested women will bear the brunt of the RTO mandate.

"Per sample data pulled, this group is disproportionately female," with women whose partners serve in the military perhaps especially impacted as life in uniform often means relocation.

Again, that's a huge leap they are making.

The sample set could have simply been from a female heavy department. Other departments could be disproportionately male afflicted. We have no idea what their sampling covered, and given how incredibly biased the source seems to be, that's more than enough reason for me to doubt their methodology.

Again, RTO is not inheritantly sexist, as this article claims. If you're intentionally targeting departments with disproportionate representation to specifically marginalize them, then that's discrimination. If this is a corporate policy expanding many departments, and one happens to be disproportionately represented by a gender, then it's far harder to substantiate claims of prejudice.