You can't prove any of these things. They are dogmatic assertions
I'm not advocating you change wherever you're at, I'm just delighted that where I am women drive road trains & haul paks, design ships, wire buildings, advance astrophyysics, etc (and, for that matter, so do the men).
It certainly makes your bemoaning "have you tried talking to women about tech?" a non issue hereabouts.
If you're happy with your bit of "the real world" (ie. a subset of the actual real world) then good on you, go forth and enjoy - and perhaps bemoan less.
Of course there are local differences which is why these need to be normalized with a population-wide sample. In that case, sex differences present themselves clearly.
As the article states, surprise surprise, on average compared to men, women are more interested in people than things.
Differences by country and culture - the reason why are the interesting questions.
> these need to be normalized with a population-wide sample.
Need to be?
The US (for example) has a large population ( ~360 mill ) with a poor system of government and an excess of hold over odd little religious groups (and home grown product like Mormons, etc).
Other countries have smaller populations (eg 25 million here), better more responsive system of government with better oversight, better education, better health, etc.
I see no benefit in being blended in with a bloated mass of objectively worse and dragged down to US levels.
This doesn't in any way negate the existence of a mean difference between groups. In the real world innate sex differences are a fact of life.
That's the whole point of the paper attached to this thread.
Egalitarians believe that society would be better off if we made all efforts to flatten these differences out or ignore them. This is an article of faith, that is in no way reflected in the real world.