Also, what would happen to people like me? I've studied for years to land a job in the development department of a respected medium-sized IT company, and you'd prefer hiring someone who can't program, but does have a vagina? That's discrimination. If you claim to oppose discrimination, you can't condone this without being a hypocrite.
I have never said that I oppose discrimination in general. What I oppose is the oppression of women in particularly and frankly I don't see a way to stop this without beating the attitude out of some people, but since physically beating an idea out of someone is apparently against Human Rights and oppressing women isn't, I'll have to settle for fighting these 'people' on their own level. Now I realize that in most people's eyes this makes me a bigot as well as a hypocrite, but that's something I'm willing to live with.
And to answer your first question, if a company would interview both me and a woman for, say, a research position and chose her over me even though I'm 'objectively' (as if...) the better researcher, then that's something I'll have to suck up for our society.
"Beating the attitude out of some people" is your justification for letting actually talented men be replaced with people whose only merit is being born with a vagina? That's a pretty flimsy justification for anything - Romans "beat the attitude" out of Christians, Ku Klux Klan "beats the attitude" out of black people etc. And in the unlikely and utterly depressing scenario where your plan is implemented, it will only worsen misogynist tendencies - do you realize that if companies are forced to prioritize women during hiring in the way you suggested, most workplaces will get women underqualified (or even completely unsuited) for the job resulting in women becoming a burden for their employers as well as other employees, only reinforcing the negative stereotypes some people have? I'm all fine with
small gender biasing to balance the demographic, but forcing a 45% minimum female rate would fuck up countless workplaces (even more if you throw in an upper limit to avoid females from crowding certain jobs), not to mention the effects of pregnant women always getting the jobs they apply for. Millions of people, men and women, would lose their jobs and possibly have their lives ruined - simply because we're "beating the attitudes out of some people". Is it worth it?
And about qualifications, since you didn't answer... again, if you need a doctor to help you deal with your (or a relative's) dangerous disease, which doctor would you see - one who has studied medicine for years and has experience treating the disease, or one with hardly any medical training but who is pregnant? If you needed someone to do your accounting, would you hire an accountant who is a certified professional with years of experience, or a woman with considerably less experience and several embezzlement accusations in her past? In short, why do you think it always makes sense to hire a woman (preferably pregnant) even if she's horribly underqualified?