The biological explanation is, by far, the Occam's razor null hypothesis here. To be convincing, you would need to supply compelling evidence that children who have unusually low contact with traditional societal influence early in life make less predictable employment choices. Otherwise, this is a just-so story like all the rest of them.
Or find 'male' roles in some cultures that aren't in others like programming.
My argument is that you cannot expect uniform distribution of career choices either by race or gender.
You can't expect exactly 13% of cops to be african american or exactly 50% of physicists to be female.
Let's look at hispanics and asians.
Asians outnumber hispanics in STEM 9:1
Hispanics outnumber asians in History 3:1
Don't have links to hard sources at hand since I'm on mobile, but even anecdotally I think almost anyone would agree that hispanics are outnumbered by asians in STEM.
Ethnic chinese are strong in STEM not just in US, but almost anywhere. You can take any country with a significant chinese diaspora and you'll see the results are about the same.
Can you make a compelling counterargument that hispanics are brought up in a way that specifically encourages them to learn History?
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here? That culture pushes people to certain expectations? I agree.
You're looking at the finish line and making an answer while ignoring the fact that they are placed on different courses from birth.