No, I'm trying to identify the actual sources and magnitudes of the problems, so everyone can live fulfilling lives in a fair and just society.

Bias exists, and I said so. I also didn't say that it shouldn't be addressed--it should. Here's an example where, basically, in physics you get dinged by about one standard deviation in physics if you are thought to be black instead of white, and about one if you're thought to be female instead of male; and in biology you get dinged by about half a standard deviation on the black/white axis but not on the male/female axis. This is ridiculous and needs to be fixed. (If you look in more detail, you find that all the disparity in hireability in physics is against black women: black men are rated comparable to white men. In fact, though they're not significantly higher, black men in physics are rated more hireable than anyone else!) Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333579128_How_Gender_and_Race_Stereotypes_Impact_the_Advancement_of_Scholars_in_STEM_Professors'_Biased_Evaluations_of_Physics_and_Biology_Post-Doctoral_Candidates/link/5d039a10a6fdcc39f118037d/download

Okay, so this obviously should be fixed (biology mostly has fixed it already, though), but...does it explain most of the disparity in faculty numbers? Keeping in mind the very wide variance in scores, and that you actually only need a few high scores to be hired at least somewhere?

(Incidentally, if you tell people you want to hire women, then instead of rating women lower than men, they rate women more highly than men--same application, women get rated higher. There is a serious problem with the disparity between the ideal of merit-based advancement and actual advancement in academia. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11199-021-01251-4 .)

Underpromotion should also be addressed (but the links you gave don't document it quantitatively, and I haven't found a compelling study). But does it explain most of the disparity?

What I doubt is that when you see that the demographics at some level--tenured faculty, let's say--does not match the country, that the primary problem is the bias at that level. Fix the bias, to the extent you can, of course...but figure out how big each problem is. In particular, if the bigger problem is the pool of potential candidates than the filtering of candidates, we shouldn't use all our breath talking about problems in filtering.

Let me give an example. There are about 300,000 tenured professors in the United States. Vanishingly few of them are under 30 (apparently under 300, but I haven't been able to find the actual number--here's a chart, though: https://www.cupahr.org/surveys/research-briefs/2020-aging-of-tenure-track-faculty-in-higher-ed-implications-for-succession-diversity/). I've seen older professors be incredibly dismissive towards young professors--though some are supportive, there's also incredible anti-young ageism.

Therefore, the reason that there are so few tenured professors under 30 is because of ageism among tenure committees. Furthermore, racial disparities are only at worst about 10x, while age disparities are well over 100x. Therefore, our main focus should be on overcoming ageism by, perhaps, hiring into tenured positions a bunch of 18-30 year olds.

Right?

If you say otherwise, you're "trying to minimize ageism". And though I'm still in research but not in academia at the moment, I was in academia for a long time, and "we had ageism in academe so please spare me your BS".

Or maybe this isn't a productive approach and we should not treat trying to understand the nature of the problem so we can effectively solve it as an opportunity to attack the character of the other person.