It is odd that whenever feminist ideologue psychologists try to prove “no difference” between male and female math ability, they tend to stop comparing data soon after the onset of puberty. Liz Spelke attempted something similar when she debated Steven Pinker at Edge.org.
Especially, when I just finished reading a .pdf of “Gender at School” in Czech, a proud opus of some Czech NGO financed by Soros. Of course, the gap between school performance in maths between boys and girls is mentioned, and with a handwawe ascribed to the stereotyping. The logic was hit over the head by ideology many times in that little gem in the style “damned if you do and damned if you don’t”.
An example: If a boy performs well in maths, he is NOT praised. If a girl does the same, she IS praised. In this way she can take home a message, that her performance was extraordinary for a girl, which will only cement her in the stereotypical opinion, that women aren’t good at maths.
Another example of the same sofism in the book: At the workplace, women often make coffee for all coworkers, male and female alike (naturally it is wrong…). A gender-progressive firm may interfere and introduce a rule, that all males and females must take turns in making a coffee. Which is wrong again, because it makes people even more conscious of their gender, i.e., masculinity and femininity. The question as how to make a corporate coffee without offending any dogma remained unanswered, though.