The accompanying text seems to suggest two things: differences between sexes are exaggerated (or maybe even non-existent) AND differences are ignored in health care, which is a bad thing.

IMHO there is always a political side to opinions about gender issues, and what is nature or nurture can never be proven 100%. Besides, as virtually all animals know significant sex differences, the burden of proof lies on those who state that humans don't.

So the least Scientific American could have done to remain credible is give a platform to voices from both sides (or maybe there are more than two sides). (And I'm not asking they only publish articles from people I agree with.) Chapter titles like 'End harassment' and 'Time for women leaders' sound purely political and not scientific at all (I'm not saying that the content of the chapters is untrue, I haven't read the book). 'India has a female suicide crisis'; I'll immediately believe that is a dramatic fact, but really, how one-sided can you get? Etc. etc.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/store/ebooks/women/

PS When Cordelia Fine writes a book stating there are no gender differences, I disagree heartily with her, but it's her perfect right to do so. But Scientific American has some authority and should be more careful how they use it and less pc.