Your logical reasoning ignores scientific evidence. Your only evidence is a social commentary. That's not scientific in any way, in any of those disciplines.

Repeated studies have shown the difference. It's not debatable that male and female brains are wired different, and that males are inherently superior at tasks similar to CS. How they differ is still being studied, but the difference is there.

You're making this a psychological issue, but ignoring a key factor. People will do things that they are naturally good at. Males are generally better at CS type tasks, so they will do them more often. That's incredibly basic human behavioural psychology. It's one of the things we know for a fact that encourages development in children. They will do things they are good at much more than they will do things that are difficult.

You're using a horrible example here. You are trying to justify that outliers are relevant compared to the majority. They're not. They're outliers for a reason.

Yes, I am sure. Here am some sources to back up what I said -

Source, book on the subject, another source, another source, I can literally go on and on with this.

I see your point. Yes, society views some tasks as inherently male, and others inherently female. But that doesn't detract from the fact that there are distinguishable differences between the sexes, and sometimes these views are accurate. This is one of the cases where it is.

You have no argument. You have no scientific evidence. You have only a social commentary. There is no way you have a job in a scientific discipline, and if you do, it's some field of psych that even the rest of the psych field considers worthless.