So, you're saying that aside from genitalia, men and women are exactly the same and, in a vacuum, the distribution of genders in any given profession should be perfectly equal? You really believe that?
So, you're saying that aside from the numerical value, a set of people with an average testosterone level of ~500ng/dL are exactly the same as a set of people with an average testosterone level of ~20?
To deny that hormones exert a tremendous influence over our behaviors and motivations is absurd.
Possibly so, but there's plenty of evidence that testosterone levels affect someone's willingness to work long, tedious hours in isolation in exchange for a higher salary, and give up their personal time for career advancement.
> to learn how all of those studies have proven flawed/heavily biased
Notice the extreme impression you've gotten from this book. She does not "prove" flaws in all research on this topic, though often her criticisms are valid she chooses areas to criticize and hints that it's representative of all research that show gender differences.
She could have also chosen to criticize studies which attempt to disprove gender differences, which are often just as flawed.
Touted as such by whom? It sounds like just Baron-Cohen et al. Your comment gave the impression that "all" studies of gender differences have been refuted.
The most well-known, replicated, large effect study that I'm aware of I searched for and didn't find any reference to in her book. http://www.elainehatfield.com/79.pdf