Presumably the article's author is so used to "sexism" meaning "women are under-represented" that they don't realize "men are under-represented" is equally sexist.

Not that under-representation is necessarily evidence of bias, which is what the word "sexism" implies. The study's authors, Ceci and Williams, are aware of this:

> This led to their conclusion that gender bias did not cause the small number of women in STEM fields. They said the small representation of women in the sector was caused by their own reluctance to enter these fields.

I don't think under/over-representation is necessarily sexism; typical "correlation does not imply correlation". My point was that the first statement ("no sexism") was in direct contradiction to "Women Twice as Likely to be Hired Over Equally-Qualified Men". Of course, even that is not necessarily sexism; it could simply be that women are/expect to be paid less than equally-qualified/capable men, so it's a no-brainer to hire only women.

>found no sexism in STEM faculty positions as more women are now hired for STEM tenure-track jobs at a 2:1 ratio.

It's only sexism if it benefits men.

I hope you're sarcastic.

/s

And e=mc^2 is a gendered equation.

Presumably they mean discrimination against women, which has been the predominant form of sexism.

It's not even clear this is firmly sexism, it could be effects from 20 years ago trickling up to today. Our current educational pipeline is long and involves literally thousands of people making their own decisions about how to teach you.