[flagged]
yet 95% of the prison inmates are male. There are obvious differences on the extreme ends of the spectrum between males and females and the nobel price only considers extremes to begin with.
Society was very different a hundred years ago. Women's access to education amongst other things has improved severely over time, and we do have seen an increase in female Nobel laureates compared to the earlier days.
It's a matter of time.
Anyway, my main rant was about the inefficiency of giving awards to "lone geniuses", at most three, of expecting said "lone wolves" to exist in the first place, and then comes the discussion if the wolves are male or not. Unfortunately it got derailed into talking about pseudoscientific scalars such as IQ and sex binaries.
[1] "large scale changes began around the 1970s", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_STEM_fields
And the trend of aging winners continues as research become more complex and specialized and therefore requires more experience. The time between theory and the practical discovery (Nobel prizes are only for the latter) increase as experiments become more complex too. So much that it may become difficult for theorists to get a Nobel in their lifetime. That LK99 thing, if real, is more the exception than the rule.
Of course, they did give Donna Strickland a prize for the first paper she published as a grad student.