No. You are assuming an innate inability to control who we are. What we are does not dictate who we can be. It is an artificial social construct that imposes limitations, which unsurprisingly have benefited men.
The biological differences of humans has been used to support bigotry and discrimination, nothing new there. But while obviously wrong, it is also ridiculously F^&$#)(*G boring.
PS. I guarantee you that if a “woman’s field”* of work were to become insanely profitable, men would want in, even with our “biological incompatibility.”
*For the jokers, let’s leave out birthing. 
Nope, you got this all wrong.
Sure, a
person can overcome his or her biological traits. What a single person is will not necessarily dictate who they become, which is why I have been very careful to talk about populations here and not persons. However, from a mass population perspective (what statistics really looks at), this is just not the case. Biological differences do have effects, and some people within a mass will succumb to them, thus effecting the overall average. This is unavoidable with the masses, which take into account all persons, those whom have overcome and those whom simply don't care too.
Even the article you provided explained as much. It specifically said that reasons why less women are in tech is due to both nature and nurture, and that for anyone on the left or right to assume it is only one of them is foolish. The problem with what you are suggesting is that we can somehow control for both.
Perhaps we can decrease the social nurturing that effects the outcome, but since we can not stop nature (and since nature is also part of the equation), the disparities are not something we can fully eliminate since many individuals will choose to live with those inherently different traits and not be bothered by them. Even with recognizing this fact, do you really think many are going to care? Do you really think the average man is going to change his interests just to fight against his biology and work in an industry he is not really interested in for the sake of social progress? And do you really want a male nurse serving you who is not fully interested in his job and just doing it for social progress?
Sorry, I don't really care the gender of any nurse that serves me, I just want them to be really interested in helping me.
I mean really, if men (lets use men since I guess it's more justified to be sexist against men by how you are acting) are biologically less interested in people, and this is part of the reason why they dont go into nursing, how do we overcome this? How, please tell, do we get the entire population of men to suddenly be more interested in working with people?
Furthermore, I am not advocating using these differences to "support bigotry and discrimination;" this is your inherent liberal bias against conservatives and your inability to think logical without completely removing your emotions that is causing you to believe I believe in this interpretation of what I wrote. I am only pointing out the causes of such disparities, and admitting it is part nature and nurture. Extrapolating the reasons for these disparities to justify bigotry is a totally different line of thought and not one I am advocating.
Last, women are not forced into lower paying jobs because we feel that is where they should be. It is simply the case that women choose to work more with people, and you can only work with so many people at the same time. Think of a nurse, how many persons can she care for at once? Not many, which is why her salary is not terribly high. However, an engineer can serve many 1000s with his work all at once. Although the amount he can get from each is significantly smaller, the shear number of people an engineer can serve multiplies this amount to being a much higher value.
There is no multiplier effect when working directly with people, and that is why the social sciences pay much less. It will always be this way.
