The Seattle Times did a nice job here of presenting viewpoints from women Computer Scientists at different points in their careers.
The headline reads: "A UW professor argued that women don’t want to code. What do women computer scientists have to say?"
The sub headline reads: "Six women computer scientists from the University of Washington respond to an essay about why women don’t pursue computer science as often as men."
In some ways, I think that misrepresenting these headlines can be harmful. A young woman considering CS who reads the headline might conclude that a professor at UW things that women, across the board, are uninterested in the CS major. If she reads the sub-headline, she might conclude that he believes that fewer of the top students will be women, but that certainly some of them will be.
I can't say that the second is welcoming, but it's a very, very different statement from the first.
For instance, suppose about 20% of his class is women. He's not saying that this 20% of his class shouldn't be there, or won't rise to the top. He is saying that it may not be productive to even out this ratio. Plenty to disagree with and object to in that thesis. But that is very different from not believing in the women who take his class, and it is utterly different from sabotaging the women in his class (making sure they don't rise to the top).
I want to be very clear in this comment and elsewhere that I believe that there is plenty to object to in the claim that 20% represents some kind of natural plateau. My position is that we need to accurately represent the point of view that we are debating.