I really enjoyed this preprint. I have one comment: Throughout this manuscript, you reference univariate effect sizes. It seems relevant to reference a multivariate effect (i.e., Mahalanobis D) if only to make the point that even small mean differences in univariate preferences, personality traits, and cognitive abilities can combine to create perceivably large gender/sex differences. I know this topic is debated (and the authors are critical of D and what is means), but this thesis seems incomplete without reference to how preferences/traits/abilities could combine to create differences in what majors/jobs/careers men and women are good at/pursue (on average). I think the commentaries here (https://marcodgdotnet.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/delgiudice_etal_2012_comments_reply.pdf) and the examples described here (https://marcodgdotnet.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/delgiudice_2013_is-d_valid_ep.pdf) make the debate and the conceptual utility of D clear.