Or interests/passions are in fact highly dependent upon social factors, such as sexism.

How many men do you know who are ballet dancers? Do you think that's because there's actually something present in the DNA of little girls that's not present in the DNA of little boys that makes them interested in ballet?

Or could it be because if you're a little girl who dances it's cute/pretty and if you're a boy it's because you're gay/weak?

This is the problem. If men hold a monopoly on powerful or lucrative roles in society, that monopoly will reign through the establishment of gender-dichotomous "interests and passions." Of course gender doesn't play any intrinsic role in whether you're into ballet. Nor does it play any intrinsic role in whether you're into computer science.

> Do you think that's because there's actually something present in the DNA of little girls that's not present in the DNA of little boys that makes them interested in ballet?

Yes, probably related to the production of testosterone or a similar mechanism.

It's hardly surprising in a sexually dimorphic species.

Perhaps I don't know enough about ballet, but my understanding was that it is physically demanding in ways that favor female physiology over male physiology (e.g. requires more flexibility). Not to say that the cultural aspect isn't there, but rather that the cultural aspect may be influenced by biological differences.

How about any other form of dance? Or fashion design? Or theatre? Gymnastics? So on and so forth.

Of course there are biological differences that surface in all of these things. The question is whether these differences by themselves account for the disparities. Of course the answer is no.

In professional ballet, men make up approximately 50% of the population. But of course there are physiological difference that change competencies.

Applying this to interests, however, implies that there is a neurological difference that makes women worse at computer science. There is not methodologically sound data to back this up.