The question is, is there evidence to suggest biological factors could play a significant role in explaining the extremely low amounts of women in science?
Your original comment said the biological arguments were "refuted". Lacking conclusive evidence for hypothesis A is a lot different than "refuting" hypothesis A. I think a more fair statement is that we don't really know.
The relevant biological differences may not be in math skills. It may be in competitiveness, risk taking, etc.
Or the biological origin may be second order. For instance, it may be true that men and women have the same innate drive towards competitiveness. But there is certainly a biological difference in what men and women find attractive. Men are attracted primarily to signs of fertility. Women are attracted to signals of status and dominance. Thus men might culturally condition themselves to be more competitive in order to earn status and get laid. Thus there will tend to be more men at the top of any high status, competitive field. The roots of this will be biological, but the effect is second or third order.
Your original comment said the biological arguments were "refuted". Lacking conclusive evidence for hypothesis A is a lot different than "refuting" hypothesis A. I think a more fair statement is that we don't really know.
The relevant biological differences may not be in math skills. It may be in competitiveness, risk taking, etc.
Or the biological origin may be second order. For instance, it may be true that men and women have the same innate drive towards competitiveness. But there is certainly a biological difference in what men and women find attractive. Men are attracted primarily to signs of fertility. Women are attracted to signals of status and dominance. Thus men might culturally condition themselves to be more competitive in order to earn status and get laid. Thus there will tend to be more men at the top of any high status, competitive field. The roots of this will be biological, but the effect is second or third order.