Thanks.
The op-ed focused entirely on the adult experience of career, but the paper goes a lot deeper. It does not dispute a gender gap, but attempts to explore/explain it.
Interestingly, they dispute the popular notion of boys as being more naturally inclined to occupying the right tail of mathematical ability with greater frequency, as a meta-analysis of previous studies shows the lack of consistency among different cultures with different attitudes. This has been found among other studies, as well.
The op-ed disputed the notion of gender bias at the academy... that is, gender bias in hiring practices at the highest levels of professorship. The basic takeaway I got from this study is that the gender biases are potent BEFORE the academy. In other words, there are reasons why only 12% of applicants for tenure-track positions in Physics were women, they're not biological, and they're pervasive from childhood through entry-level hiring, when life choices (child bearing/care) have no bearing on the conversation.
I found their case against hiring bias to be pretty weak. They seem to have made a stronger case in the opposite direction.
