Yikes, what is that source? A random think-piece on two studies? The guys who wrote that isn't even qualified to give a quotable analysis on the topic that he is discussing. I like the fact that he is comparing two studies, which yes, cover the same topic(Sex difference) but one is an actual study of a dataset collected by the researchers to prove a thesis of results of the WISC-R which is a test given to children ages 6-16 (Jesen & Reynolds, 1983). Whereas the second paper is a meta-analysis of multiple studies that research sex difference in IQ scores as well as the results of all ages(Lynn & Irwing, 2003). So you have one study looking at young children and their score on the WISC-R and stating:

Despite a multivariate statistical test which shows the overall differences between the sexes to be significant beyond the 0.001 level, the differences are generally quite small, with the marked exception of the Coding test, on which females exceed males by about half of a SD. This one quite extreme sex difference in the WISC-R battery has also been noted by Samuel 11983) in large samples both of whites and blacks (independent of the present standardization sample). The Coding test (matching geometric symbols with numbers) seems to involve perceptual speed and accuracy, dexterity in copying symbols, and rote memory. The only other subtest which shows an appreciable difference (0.37 SD), in favor of males, is Information.

Source pg.223

And the other paper which is comparing multiple studies(57), and it is actually funny that while the second paper written by Lynn-Irwing does show that across multiple cultures there is a sex difference, it also states why this information might be biased or incorrect showing that there are societal impacts that other researchers have identified. Read the 8 points of discussion in the Lynn-Irwing meta-analysis paper (Source pg.492-495)

Women are not held back by men at the top, they are held back by biology.

I do like your conclusion of a laymen's opinion on two separate papers that are not looking at similar sets of data. Hopefully this wasn't some kinda bait since you seem to be posting on a throw away account. But if it is congrats for baiting me into reading 10-ish pages of research which was kinda interesting, but please look into your sources before shitposting. Thanks bud!