I highly disagree with this take on so-called pinkification. I think it misses the mark, largely because it is ahistorical and ignores the absolute paucity of agency that femininity has had in shaping STEM throughout its existence. The relevant question is: why wasn’t it pink to begin with? I don’t just mean this abstractly. You can look at default settings for source code, comment blocks, inline comments, etc. in almost any language and find that pink sees tertiary use, at best. Sometimes it’s not even there. Historically, it has always ranked behind blue, red, green, and other colors, such as different shades of blue, red, and green.
In other words, what you are calling pinkifying is really just de-blueifying. Literally and metaphorically. Why argue against de-blueifying? What is so bad about a greater diversity of representation in STEM that includes more pink options instead of 99% blue options? Your argument is fundamentally pro-status quo, but it’s the status quo that has created a culture of wildly toxic masculinity that saturates all areas of STEM. Pinkification is one of many tactics that has the potential to change this.
As such, I say there absolutely is a need to pinkify. The logical basis for this is an understanding that history really did happen and STEM exists in the context of the real world, such as it has been wrought by way of said history. If you are moral, and if you are legitimately prepared to cede agency of STEM to women, then any woman who wants to pinkify STEM should be able to pinkify STEM with zero blowback from you or anyone else, and that’s really the alpha and omega of this discussion.
PS — Bronies are also real and may take umbrage with the way you have used My Little Pony in this piece.