Exclusion Is a Vulnerability: Reflections from Disobey 2026 on the gender gap in tech

At Disobey 2026, one talk stood out for its direct and necessary message: “Exclusion Is a Vulnerability: Patching the Gender Gap in Tech” by Willem.

Disobey has long been more than solely a technical event. It is also a space for questioning and investigating the structures and cultures that shape the cyber world. In this setting, Willem’s talk fits into the spirit and context of the event. Instead of treating gender inequality as a side topic separate from the technical concerns of the cyber world, the talk argued that exclusion itself should be understood as a systemic weakness.

This framing is very relevant in cybersecurity. We often talk about vulnerabilities as flaws in systems, weaknesses in design, or blind spots in risk management. The central argument in Willem’s talk is that gender bias functions in the same way. It distorts decision-making, narrows the talent pipeline, weakens teams, and makes organizations less innovative, less resilient, and less secure.

After the talk, we had the chance to interview Willem and continue the discussion in a more personal and reflective manner. What emerged from that conversation was a picture not only of the scale of the gender gap in tech, but also of the everyday realities that keep it in place.

Why this topic, and why now?

When asked what led to this topic, Willem’s answer was grounded in lived and observed experience. Working at KPN, Willem described an environment with no female colleagues in the immediate professional circle and an average age of around 55. That experience raised larger questions about representation, workplace culture, and the structural patterns that continue to shape the field.

This made the talk feel especially relevant at Disobey 2026. Events like Disobey bring together people from across cybersecurity and adjacent communities, but they also create an opportunity to reflect on who is present, who is missing, and what that says about the industry as a whole. A conference is not only a place to present solutions. It is also a place to notice absences.

Willem’s talk did exactly that. It asked the audience to see gender inequality not as an abstract diversity issue, but as something with real consequences for organizations, technologies, and the future of the industry.

Looking outward is not enough

One of the most striking ideas from the interview was the distinction between external and internal action. Willem noted that companies can support programs, conferences, and initiatives aimed at encouraging more women into tech, yet still fail to address the issues inside their very own organizations. This is a contradiction that deserves attention. It is easier to sponsor change than to actually undergo it.

Therefore, external outreach matters. It can inspire aspiring students, create visibility, and build networks. However, if workplace culture, hiring practices, and advancement structures are still unchanged, organizations risk presenting themselves as part of the solution without truly becoming one. As Willem reflected, companies have the most control over their own internal systems, and that is where serious change needs to begin.

Bias is subtle, but it is still harmful

The interview highlighted something that is often overlooked in public conversations: bias is not always dramatic or explicit. It often appears in smaller, repeated behaviors that may not seem severe in isolation but become exhausting when accumulated.

Willem referred to sexist jokes, remarks, and the kind of subtle behavior that many people in male-dominated workplaces recognize immediately. These are not always the headline-grabbing forms of discrimination, and sometimes they aren’t meant to be discriminatory at all, but they shape the environment all the same. This influences who feels comfortable, who feels respected, and who feels that they belong. Exclusion does not only happen through formal policies. It also happens socially, through routines, comments, assumptions, and cultures that make some people feel like permanent outsiders.

Meritocracy only works when it is made concrete

When asked what organizations and employees can actually do, Willem’s answer was practical: define things clearly, write them down, and reduce the room for subjective bias. Hiring criteria should be documented, promotion standards should be communicated clearly, and evaluation processes should be transparent. Where possible, names and gender markers should be removed from decision-making contexts that trigger bias. This is an important point because many workplaces like to describe themselves as merit-based while relying heavily on informal judgments. But informal systems are often exactly where bias enters. When expectations are vague, people fall back on stereotypes, familiarity, and “gut feeling.” In that sense, structure is not bureaucracy for its own sake, but it is also protection. It helps make fairness more real and less rhetorical.

AI is not neutral when the systems behind it are biased

The conversation also turned to artificial intelligence and whether it can improve this situation. Willem’s response was cautious. In theory, AI could be a tool for improvement. In practice, it often reproduces the biases already embedded in teams, data, and institutions.

More diverse teams are better positioned to build less biased systems. But when teams are not diverse, the outputs they create can reinforce exclusion rather than reduce it. That creates a cycle in which biased systems influence hiring and evaluation, which then shapes the composition of future teams.

For the cyber field, this matters deeply. Biased systems are not only ethically troubling, but they can also produce weak results. If the people building tools all come from similar backgrounds and share similar assumptions, critical blind spots become more likely.

Awareness comes before change

Another strong message from the interview was that bias first needs to be identified before it can be addressed. Willem emphasized that many forms of bias remain invisible, particularly to those who do not experience them directly. That is why education matters, and not only for managers or leadership, but for everyone.

Bias is not just a “women’s issue.” It is a workplace issue, a systems issue, and a cultural issue. People need to be able to recognize biased behavior, name it, and speak up when they see it. As Willem put it, the process is: identify, speak out, improve.

The middle step is often the most difficult. Even when people notice something is wrong, saying something about it is a whole other step to take. But remaining silent allows the pattern to continue. In that way, exclusion is maintained not only by active behavior but also by passive acceptance.

Why representation needs more than tokenism

One of the most memorable moments in the interview was Willem’s story about a small IT company with 19 male employees that made a conscious effort to bring more women into the team. According to Willem, they chose to hire two women instead of just one, and the results were strongly positive, including financial improvement. This example illustrated something very important. Inclusion is not achieved by placing one woman into a heavily male-dominated space and hoping for the best.

Willem pointed out that being the only woman in a team can be isolating, even if the colleagues are kind. If there is no peer connection, no social overlap, and no sense of shared experience, people may still feel alone, and that isolation often affects retention. Team composition shapes workplace reality in ways that numbers alone do not capture. Representation is not just about entry, but also about belonging.

Willem's presentation at Disobey 2026

Disobey as a place for these conversations

What made this topic especially fitting for Disobey 2026 was that the event creates room for exactly these kinds of discussions. Cybersecurity conferences are often associated with tools, exploits, infrastructure, and technical research. While these topics are essential, they do not paint the entire picture.

Who gets to participate in cyber? Who stays? Who gets heard? Who gets overlooked? These are relevant questions because they affect the people and systems on which the field depends.

At Disobey, where the boundaries between technical skill, social critique, and community reflection are deliberately porous, Willem’s talk served as an important reminder that the health of the industry cannot be separated from the health of its culture.

More than a diversity issue

The lasting message of Willem’s talk is that the gender gap in tech should not be treated as a side issue, a branding concern, or a topic that is only relevant to women. It is a structural challenge that has implications for innovation, workplace health, security, and long-term resilience.

Exclusion narrows perspective. It pushes out talent. It makes organizations weaker. If exclusion is a vulnerability, then inclusion is not optional. It is part of building stronger teams, better technology, and a more sustainable future for cybersecurity.

At Women4Cyber Finland, this message is a deep one. Building a safer cyber ecosystem is not only about technical defenses but also about ensuring that the field is one where different people can enter, contribute, grow, and lead. Willem’s talk at Disobey 2026 made that point with clarity. Patching the gender gap in tech is not peripheral work; it is necessary work.

Susanna Halonen

W4CFI Articles & Youth Ambassador Programme