Can you cite a good source for this.
I'm concerned it might be confusing the job called "programmer" with the role we now call programmer. AIUI in the early days of computers a "programmer" was a sort of typist that took a written program and punched the cards that allowed the program to be entered in to a computer, the technical tasks of algorithm design, program construction and such were generally not done by these same people.
That aside, I'm not sure it matters: why aren't there more female top chefs? It's certainly not because women don't like to cook. I posit that it's because in general they care less about being competitive and prefer to avoid high-stress situations.
Do you consider that testosterone is inert? It's mood and mind altering and men have lots of it. Denying the basic biological differences between the sexes is a dangerous axiom on which to attempt to create a stable and fair society.
Men, as an example, undergo hormonal changes when they become parents. These changes lead to greater tendencies towards nurturing behaviours, tendencies that female ordinarily possess by default and which make men and women naturally suitable for different societal and occupational roles. It makes a lot of sense for humans to be hormonally perturbed towards preference and ability at different roles -- why we are fighting against that rather than embracing it is well beyond my ken.
I think you meant 'computer'.
My grandmother was a computer. That is what they used to call the women who performed calculations in the old days.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_computer
It's interesting history but this could not honestly be described as computer programming. Looking around online it appears there are a lot of articles that have conflated the jobs. There certainly were women in computer science back in the early days, Lovelace, Hopper come to mind.
Oh? Which ones are those? There used to be more women employed as computer programmers than men, for example. The shift happened because computer programming turned a corner and became prestigious, at which point it became "stereotypically male", and the pattern of "stereotypically male" = prestigious holds through a number of professions. Men are doctors while women are nurses. Men are professors while women are primary school teachers.
You can't just look at the present, you have to look at past shifts in employment demographics and "prestige" explains a lot more than "some genders just intrinsically desire certain kinds of work" (which, just to ensure my point is clear, is bullshit).