I just don't think that's a sexist interpretation. I can't speak for the scientist or journalist who made it, but there's no mistake in assuming that a difference in neuron structure is inherent any more than there is in assuming it's not. Assumptions aren't smart in general, and scientists should know to include all possibilities (maybe they did -- still haven't read the article, I really really should before I type any more about this), but I see nothing wrong with one assumption over the other. There is ample evidence a) that the genders have lots of fundamental differences and also b) that how we raise those genders matters a ton. Attributing a new find to one or the other is just a guess. Might not be right but I don't understand why we have to go straight to sexist.

iammyownrushmore raises the further point of whether that guess, or hell the whole study, might contribute to the continuation of the latent sexism in our society. That to me is closer to a likely possibility, although of course it shouldn't ever happen at all and only does because so many people are so mind-boggling stupid. I don't know. It's such a shame when science gets politicized in any form, and I think the various sensationalized headlines that have been bouncing around the net this week have far more to do with everyone's reaction than anything in the study itself.

(That said, I fall firmly on the "science should exist in an ideological bubble" side -- we wouldn't be where we are today if scientists hadn't consistently ignored the backwards social pressures around them and continued to study important subjects.)