I would not go so far as to say they "prove" the negation of the biological argument, when there is so much evidence that points the other direction, and a prac

I would not go so far as to say they "prove" the negation of the biological argument, when there is so much evidence that points the other direction, and a practically infinte number of confounding variables are involved if all you're doing is pointing at a couple of countries like Iran and saying "look at that". So I don't actually think it brings doubt into anything. Personally, I think it's very likely that if a large number of men and a large number of women were each given exactly equal opportunity to pursue whatever career they wished, more men would pursue tech than women. I haven't seen any data that contradicts this belief, but if I did I'd like to think I would change my mind. Of course, I have no idea what range we should expect the proportions to fall into. 51/49? 60/40? 90/10? Obviously this also means that I have no idea if the gender representation we see in tech currently accurately represents the population of people who would be interested in it, given the opportunity. But I think the weight of the evidence that we should expect more men than women in tech is much higher than the weight to the contrary. Not knowing the exact numbers simply means that we should focus our efforts on making sure everybody has equal opportunity to pursue whichever career interests them the most, as opposed to trying to reach some arbitrary numerical threshold. As long as all people are free to make their own choices, we shouldn't be concerned how the distributions turn out.