Did you read the study you are talking about? For Asians, n=219. Second, the number you are citing isn't ratio of variance, it's ratio above the 99'th percentil

Did you read the study you are talking about? For Asians, n=219. Second, the number you are citing isn't ratio of variance, it's ratio above the 99'th percentile. That ratio looks like 105 men and 114 women. So we've got a deviation from what's expected of about 18 people. Note that the article didn't do any statistical test on this number (with or without a degree-of-freedom correction). That's unsurprising, given the small sample size. tl;dr; the subgroups are not large enough and the observed differences are not wide enough. Feel free to run a statistical test to prove me wrong.