How many people do you know who are monolingual?
The vast majority of people on the planet know more than one human language and know zero computer languages. It's literally the opposite of what you're claiming.
It makes a huge difference, whether you have to learn thousands of new words, irregular grammar and (after learning thousands of concepts in the first language) learning a few hundred new concepts, or you learn a computer-understandable language, that has maybe, if very inelegant, 100 keywords, and 100 concepts, most of which you will probably not use often.
Compared to these numbers, the fact, that something is a natural language, has very little influence on the outcome. It is the sheer effort needed to learn a natural language, that makes the difference.
Not always. Languages can differ radically. If the new language uses concepts you've never encountered before, you're going to need to do the work of learning those new concepts.
An example I've used before: 20 years writing C code for embedded systems won't give you any insight into Haskell's applicatives or monads.
I regularly use several programming languages, and tend to pick up a new one every year. I've been spending the last six months studying my second spoken language; I promise you human languages are much harder to learn.
You also have an inbuilt ability to learn a computer language. What even is an inbuilt ability?
Programming languages are something you read and write and execute. You can learn many and their definition is precise and limited. It's very easy to be able to pick a programming language and use it in relative low amount of time.
Human languages are absolutely different. You can't easily pick them up and they carry cultural context, regional variations, and a lot of ambiguity and history. Definitions of those languages tend to be complete or prescriptive but descriptive and evolving. The languages are written, spoken, read and listened to. The variation in all of those is immense.
Do you acknowledge any of this or will you double down in the most absurd of points?
If someone is interviewing and they only have Java listed, and their school is known for teaching Java for their introductory classes. They're probably not that strong of a programmer.
programming languages have a small, manageable and finite set of vocabulary, idioms, and constructs that most languages share but express differently depending on their intended use. a programmer fluent in programming will be able to pick up most languages. how those pieces are cobbled together to form more complicated abstractions becomes the skill obv.
that does not mean they'll be an expert right away, but it does mean they are usually competent enough at minimum to dive in and work with it just like any other tool -- they know they'll need a screwdriver, maybe a hammer, so they look up what it looks like and how it is used.
my daily drivers are python, cmake/Makefiles, c++, and c, with a sprinkling of bash, powershell.
i've worked with microsoft stacks C#/SQL, JavaScript, and i've written a ton of Lua. i've studied concepts and swe fundamentals in languages i don't really write code in and transcribe into code i do intend to write code in. i learned mostly using Lua first, then i picked up c++.
these are just the tools of my job overall. my main skill is communication and learning imo, and knowing which tools are better suited for a task at hand depending on requirements and limitations (mine or technical or both).