When we were trying to fill faculty positions in the Ohio State University math department, my colleagues usually put forward the names of male candidates. When women were proposed, they wouldn't make the cut for various reasons, such as that the university where she did her postdoc was less prestigious than that of another candidate, or another applicant published in a more prestigious journal.
After observing this for many years, I proposed an applicant who trumped all other candidates my colleagues had proposed that year, in all categories that my colleagues had stated were important to them.
Speaking against my candidate at the hiring meeting, a colleague asked "But is she on a trajectory to get a Fields Medal?"
My colleagues turned to me for a response. The question took me by surprise. If I said no, that would reduce the chances that she would get a job offer. But if I said yes, they wouldn't believe me.
Instead, I pointed out that:
1. the department had never before used such a criterion in our hiring deliberations,
2. our mission was only to choose the best candidate among the applicants, and this candidate had the best file,
3. no one who had ever gotten a Fields Medal had ever been a faculty member in the Ohio State math department,
4. as far as I could tell, no one in the department had been on a trajectory to get a Fields Medal at the time they were hired,
5. it isn't clear that being "on a trajectory to get a Fields Medal" is a meaningful concept.
Since then, I've seen variations of that line ("but is she on a trajectory to ...?") used against women, but I've never seen such a line used against men.