But you could make a socially scientific counter-argument that people enter a university field of study with prospects for future employment as a major reason (a reason that may far outweigh any genetically based gender preference).    So having fewer eg:  "female software engineers" in the current population of employed graduates may discourage potential female entrants into the field.      The author is assuming that the lower number is based upon some socially scientific gender difference when you could argue that the reasons are far more practical.    (i.e. women may not choose Computer Science because they assume their future employment prospects are at a disadvantage to men). 

So to "convince" more women into the field you have to demonstrate that their future has an equal prospect of employment success.

This debate is NOT "science" so to pretend that her conclusions are is misleading.