equal opportunities? freedom of choice? How can you control for these really abstract concepts that involve thousands of variables. What constitutes freedom of choice when you have the internet and articles that say males should do x and women y? How can you say that something is inherited or environmental? Even with biology, most of the disease imply both factors.

I've seen some of the articles about the Nordic countries and was not conviced at all. They were saying that in Nordic countries women have more choice and they have a lower participation in CS studies. And bang, they thought they proved something...

The Nordic countries are the most egalitarian countries on earth with regards to rights, equal pay, and gender norms. The sex differences in many different academic fields and professions persist and are even more pronounced than countries which are more blatantly sexist. This is the best evidence available, and it suggests that not everything is socially learned. This suggests that some basic tenets of social constructivism are false by its own criteria.

Rather than accepting no evidence, why don't you suggest a better way to test this idea and explain why your test would be better?

Rather than accept poor science I suggest not pretending to do science if you can't do it in a rigurous, scientific way.

There is nothing wrong in saying that we don't know if coffee is good or not for your health. Science is not there yet with its tools to test for this. Instead of presenting studies over studies that contradict each other.

The same with inherited differences between genders. Science is not there yet to tell us anything about it.