>So no actual evidence of anything.
Yes, you have correctly identified the paper as a review on current theories.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotype_threat#Criticism
Yes, there is debate about these things, as there often is in the social sciences. This is from the same criticism section on wikipedia:
"In a 2009 meta-analysis, Gregory M. Walton and Steven J. Spencer argued that studies of stereotype threat may in fact systematically under-represent its effects, since such studies measure "only that portion of psychological threat that research has identified and remedied. To the extent that unidentified or unremedied psychological threats further undermine performance, the results underestimate the bias."[23] Despite these limitations, they found that efforts to mitigate stereotype threat significantly reduced group differences on high-stakes tests.[23]"
Please also note that nobody is claiming that stereotype threat is the only factor in STEM performance.
I'm no expert in the field either, and I welcome discussion. But I would prefer a better faith argument than copying the most "gotcha" paragraph from the criticism section of wikipedia.
If you could verbalize your skepticism more clearly I think this discussion would be more fruitful.
EDIT: I see you have edited your comment and added a lot. The above was my response to your first draft.
>As a feminist, I also can't get on-board with a view of women as such delicate fragile flowers that such perceptions would prevent them from doing something they like, and it doesn't match the women in my life...but maybe I have been blessed with unusually non-delicate women, who knows?
This feels especially in bad-faith. These are statistical effects, at society scale. Considering how clear the effectiveness of repeated messages is at a social level (e.g. marketing, religion, fake news, ideology), it should not surprise you that ideas of stereotypes influence people's behaviour. Humans fall for marketing as a society, are we all "delicate fragile flowers"?