> It starts out with scare quote even in the first paragraph which is, if not just outright bad, criticized enough to be a faux pas in itself.

I suggest reading the introduction to the book in Amazon. Plenty of "scare quotes" there too, just pushing an opposing narrative. Maybe the tone of the article is reflective of the book rather than a bias people seem all too quick to ascribe to the article's author (although the author is almost certainly biased too -- we all are). I'm not sure the article has embellished much given the introduction.

The article actually points out the book's main bias, "Chang does not consider any alternative theses that might cause gender disparities in occupational sectors." People attempting to analyze an issue with a narrative already firmly in mind is all too common, and the signal to noise ratio on this subject been getting worse. This book appears to be more of the same. I've done a lot of reading on this issue, and the book's intro and this article reflect a common narrative that can explain only some of the data rather than following where the data leads.

The article cites a few books by professional psychologists that discuss gender differences at length. That's where you'll find better data and better theories to explain the data.

As for other good points in the article:

1. I think the article is correct to point out that tech is getting an unusual amount of attention given the gender disparities in other fields. I think people with a feminist agenda see tech as a big lever for social change because of how pervasive tech is in our lives. Adopting that agenda will have upsides and downsides, but we should always be wary of agendas, because they are by necessity blind to effects outside their narrow scope. This agenda is often couched in phrases like "diverse teams always outperform non-diverse teams". If that were true to any meaningful degree, then there would be no need for any explicit action on our part because compensation for diversity would reflect that.

2. The article is also correct to point out that redistributing work means taking women out of other sectors and displacing men to other sectors (although obviously hyperbolic in suggesting we just swap with nurses), and this change won't necessarily lead to better outcomes overall.

Finally, consider the obvious question: why is it necessary to "break up" the boy's club in tech when we clearly didn't need any such call to break up the boy's clubs in medicine or law. Arguably, they were far more insular and sexist, but women broke into them anyway and achieved gender parity. But note that while those fields overall are roughly gender equal, the genders have still segregated themselves into various specializations, eg. surgery is still male dominant, pediatrics is female dominant. The sexism narrative can't explain this, but the works by the psychologists the article cites actually can.

This is one among a few data points that tells me who is more closely pursuing the data, and who is pursuing a narrative. Anyway, I could trot out plenty of citations on this, and I have here on HN in the past, but there's little point. It almost always devolves into pointless squabbling.