The problem with MS’s argument that 2% of VC funding going to women-owned startups is the result of gender discrimination is that if that were the case then VCs would be leaving money on the table. That is, they are losing out on profitable businesses in order to pursue a prejudice. This would lead to profit-seeking women-owned VCs (or non-biased male ones) funding the women-owned businesses and making super-normal returns.
Do we see that? If not, MS’s argument is wrong.
Look at the returns of those 2% women-owned businesses and compare it with the 98%. At the margin, they should be the same (adjusting for risk).