It doesn't though. The GP comment is about (mis)attributing causation.

"Women can't do science" and "bell curve arguments about some races being less intellectually capable than others" are both causal arguments. "The SAT exhibits racial bias" is an observational statement. You took the GP's argument about causal misattribution and turned it into one about hiding observational conclusions, but that wasn't present in the original comment.

You very well may have a study that shows women produce a fraction of the science men do, maybe even per-capita, and that's not sexist per your own comment. You agreed it's only sexist if it attributes it to innate biology.

I'm done responding to you though because you're tone is confrontational and emotional.

Yes, because "women can't do science" and "women produce less scientific output" are different. There first is casual. The second is observational. (I guess you could make a semantic argument that "can't do science" means like "are unable to due to environmental factors" and is thus also ultimately observational, but that's not particularly convincing in the context of scientific research).