Hmm, it saddens me to see people actually expressing opinions like this in a way that appears authoritative. I don't claim to be expert in many things; but observing people is definitely a skill I have pride in and, empirically, you are wrong.

Well, not so much wrong as massively over simplifying a complex psychology. It seems to boil down to "girls are mad", which is not necessarily something I would disagree with at 2pm on a Sunday when we just have to see another dress shop... but when talking I do think it is just a mistake.

I see a lot of this; I think it is often born out of the fact that some of the more high profile CS women tend to be kooky or off the wall which introduces an accidental observation bias.

one of the strongest emotions of women.. ..is to have a career that "helps people", and biomedical careers seem to qualify

Nah, this is just a stereotype. It is born out of the stereotype that the female oriented jobs all tend to be inclined in that way; female oriented jobs are historically non-academic, practical and not usually physically taxing. This is due to historical prejudice against female ability.

There is no evidence of a greater "sharing caring" mentality in the female psych compared to men.

With 'feminism', some enormously talented and determined girls as high school seniors believed "Women don't have to just be cared for. Women and do things, too.", made terrific grades in college and let that reinforce their belief, charged into 'male' careers, and paid a very high price in lack of children, busted marriages, and sometimes even their lives, literally. "It's not nice to try to fool Mother Nature."

That's just what they dramatize on TV. Top tip; don't learn psychology/sociology from TV, they thrive on mild prejudices :)

The problem with such a theory is that you are looking at a portion of women entering traditionally male arenas; and you are actually looking at the failures. As with most things, you never really see the successes.

At present the Western European gene pool is likely in the most rapid change in the last 40,000 years because genes of women who are not just DETERMINED to be mommies are being pruned out. So, in another few generations, we will be left with women who are determined to be MOMMIES.

Studies please, that is an extraordinary claim. It puts breeding/nuturing ability against ability to have a "non-female" career, to the best of my knowledge that has never been studied. And I feel that identifying such a broad but simplistic link would be extremely hard...

Uh, sorry, but that the fraction is small need not be evidence of anything wrong.

Finally something rational! :) But there is a caveat; which is that it is not automatically evidence of a problem, but it may be the indicator to a problem (i.e. something that is restricting those women that do want to enter CS).

Generally, from a little after birth and for nearly all their lives, human females are MUCH more emotional than human males.

Studies show generally that this is untrue. Women tend to be more openly emotional and have lower thresholds for both being hurt and "getting over it". Whereas men have a higher threshold, and are emotional more in private, but when it hurts it damn well hurts for a long time. Simple statements like the one you make are classic observation bias.

One of a human female's strongest emotions is to get security from membership in, and praise, acceptance, and approval from, groups, especially groups of females about their own age.

True for people of any age, gender, race etc.

That is, they are 'herd animals'.

Snap.

I am not saying that your observations do not have a basis in fact; but they are polarised so far towards observation bias and general prejudices as to be incorrect.

Waffle about "Mother Nature", without even being able to define what that means, is just that; waffle. What you are really referring to is a complex mix of personal psychology, group psychology, social prejudices and social pressure. All of these things can and have changed; suggesting that it is biologically (or otherwise) impossible for women to be pre-disposed to CS is... misinformed :)

and with great excitement tries to explain it to a girl his age at, say, lunch

I work with kids of this age; particularly teaching them computer science stuff (and other engineerign topics). It'd be hilarious to see them talk about any (extra-curricular) subject with people not within that sphere of interest. This is not limited to computer science, people know not to bore others with their pet interest from a fairly early age. There is no special case for CS :)

and the girl regards the boy, and soon, all boys less then 2-6 years older than she, as at least 'socially' immature and, really, just immature

Hmm, not particularly true. This is the classic "older man" and protector bias, I believe it is disproved but don't actually have the studies to hand.

From my observation middle school girls on average "go" for boys in the same year or the year below. Those that aim higher in middle school are usually socially frowned at ("she's a slut" etc.), that is just my observation, but I bet it holds out generally.

Nonsense about Mother Nature, emotions and herd psychology just shows a miscomprehension of the subject. Make chauvinist? ;)