Does that mean that some interviewed applicants may not have got the job because they were the wrong sex?

Back in the late 1980s my work for a local authority included running training sessions for various groups from the council's social services department. Most of the groups tended to be wholly female, and just before starting a session for such a group I was asked by a departmental training co-ordinator if I (then a young thirty-something bloke) had any objection to the "considerable gender imbalance". My immediate reply was no. I think I added that if I thought I was at significant risk during the forthcoming session I was probably nearest the exit of the training room and knew the best route for escape! This jocular remark elicited no smile from the co-ordinator and thus indicated that she had been serious in asking me about the gender imbalance. In retrospect I now wonder how she would have reacted if I'd said I did object to the imbalance. p.s. Some people might speculate how many more viewings this thread receives simply because its title includes the word 'sex' instead of 'gender'! :-)

That was meant to read: I suggest that the risk of bullying, stress or "general unpleasantness" has more to do with attitudes by those in charge and issues of culture and personality of all concerned. Gender, or gender ratios............not so much.

I don't think is specifically a gender issue, but an observation that mixed populations are generally create less conflict. For example, a group of people all around the same age you cause problems. One thing I have definitely observed is where women have broken into traditionally male domains. They need to have quite a strong personality to get accepted. The problem is when the second one breaks through, because they then seem to conflict with the first. Again, I would not say it is really a gender issue, but more to do with too many people with the same personality traits.