Let's just ignore whether this guy's arguments are valid or not for a second, why, why would you present them in a room full of young, presumably aspirational, predominately female scientists at a conference focussed on getting more women to science? You can question whether such a conference should exist, but this isn't the way to make your point. Particularly when bringing up studies suggesting women like working with people and men like working with things - all those women in the room seemingly don't fit into that reductionist rule, so it's irrelevant in the context at best, and flat out wrong at worst. He's not a crusader, he just seems like a bit of jerk.

> given free passes into the field based on gender

Free passes aren't given based on gender, though preferential treatment might be given as part of an affirmative action program. Personally I think that is absolutely necessary, in all of STEM, because I believe there is a structural imbalance in our society against women. I'm open to the idea there isn't, and there are immutable biological differences at play, but unless we do something meaningful to correct the societal factor we'll never know. But it's super easy to say there's no chance of that and we should treat everybody totally equal, when you're not the one with the disadvantage.

As to his arguments, so much of the evidence he points to can be shaped by the same societal forces he is trying to dismiss. "I made some simple checks and discovered that it wasn't, that it was becoming sexist against men and said so." Anybody who thinks they can unravel this in a evening on google is arrogant, and totally wrong.

> speaking some truth

Real scientists don't talk in terms of absolute truth, they deal in scientific consensus given the available evidence. Please consider being less dismissive, when almost 50% (and in some ways, 100%) of the world's population is affected by how we view and respond to gender.