"Did you even understand the article? The argument is not that there are more women Fields medalists from the UK; rather, it's that supposed 'innate' difference

"Did you even understand the article? The argument is not that there are more women Fields medalists from the UK; rather, it's that supposed 'innate' differences in mathematical aptitude between young men and women turn out to be not so innate at all." The claim was, specifically, that "in (presumably less sexist) countries, the difference between male and female mathematical ability goes away, so sexism must be the cause of these differences". She named the United Kingdom as an example of a country which is supposed to be less sexist. Yet, we do not see a single Fields, Wolf, or Abel medalist. If math in the UK is sexist, then why attribute the better female performance in the UK to lack of sexism, rather than luck or genetic differences or climate variation or some other random factor? If it's not sexist, where are the female Fields medalists and IMO team members? "To get Fields medal, it's not enough to be a brainiac. You need someone to step up and give you a good mathematical education in your formative years, take your questions seriously when you're a more advanced student, and so on." Then why don't British IMO teams (http://www.imo-register.org.uk/ http://www.imo-register.org.uk/) have a larger proportion of women? "See the biographies of Sophie Germain or Rosamund Franklin if you want examples of how being the 'wrong' gender can hold back a first rate mind." (I presume you mean Rosalind Franklin?) You mean, fifty years ago, when it was perfectly legal standard practice to openly discriminate against women (and blacks, and Jews... ) in employment? No surprises there. But the article is talking about today.