[afthonos]

What truth there is in this article amounts to a (significantly outdated) survey of the state of women in society. All it presents is correlations. It's a mathematical fact that you can know nothing of causal effects between correlated results based solely on such statistics.

In other words, what this article is saying is:

1. Women are demonstrably less represented in STEM fields.

2. Women do demonstrably less well in certain metrics we associate with STEM fields.

3. This is because women are biologically less interested/able/adept at STEM.

Every bit of evidence in the article supports 1 and 2 (at least as of 20 years ago). The only support 3 gets is repeated statements that 2 is the natural, inevitable order of things.

There is no reason to believe a word of it.