"I just don't think that's a sexist interpretation."

But that's the crux of this whole issue. It is an interpretation which allows it to have power and relevance into the real world. This is not a field such as molecular biology wherein I can say: "Protein A and Protein B interacted (which I show with plenty of physical evidence) and they both have been shown to an extreme degree in the past to play a role in immune response, but no one knows why, so this may help us see how." When you speak about behavior, consciousness, and so on, there are real world implications you cannot ignore that exist solely in a social contex, they probably played a role in creating your interest in the field in the first place. And the interpretation itself contains the sexist element, it can be interpreted in the light of previously held assumptions, not facts.

"...there's no mistake in assuming that a difference in neuron structure is inherent any more than there is in assuming it's not."

I would say that yes there is. As I said before, for me, the most incredible, mind-blowing, astounding facet of the human brain is that they're all almost exactly the same and yet still unique. Neurons (barring impairments and known diseases) function the same regardless of sex. You cannot make the assumption that they could function differently when there is no reason or evidence to believe so.

Also, to clarify, your statement about an individual neuron and it's behavior/role can be vastly different to the cytoarchitecture, overall physiology or the "connectome" of the brain, which is where the focus currently is and should be if we are to prove any differences based upon gender. But even then, it has been very difficult to show any differences in that respect as well.

Also, I didn't read the primary article either, but I'll go ahead and do that now to further build upon my point and probably get madder.

From Sex differences in the structural connectome of the human brain

First line:

"Sex differences are of high scientific and societal interest because of their prominence in behavior of humans and nonhuman species."

Well there goes the damn bubble. They are well aware that this study would garner and be relevant to societal interest, not just the scientific community.

Also in the Significance section:

"The observations suggest that male brains are structured to facilitate connectivity between perception and coordinated action, whereas female brains are designed to facilitate communication between analytical and intuitive processing modes."

Fuck that, fuck that to death. Just because you throw a "suggest" in there does NOT mean you can scrub yourself clean of any perturbations from this idea, considering they are untestable at this point in time. When you make statements such as the ramifications on the emergent phenomena of the brain that lead to behavior, propensity and innateness (that we do not even have a rudimentary understanding of) that this correlational data could maybe help describe or outline, you are reaching so far that you are giving your neighbor a handjob while you watch porn. I'm being an asshole, but whatever.

From Abstract:

"Studies also show sex differences in human brains but do not explain this complementarity."

Read: "Other people have tried to use imaging techniques to give us the data we think we should see but we're the first to find the technique and data to make the curve fit. Huzzah"

I'm being shitty and obfuscating while procrastinating writing a report, so while I still have legitimate critiques of the science, I'm going to defer to the Neuroskeptic article, they are much better at this and communicate it better than I could and mostly cover the same ground. Don't pass up the comments section either, clusterfuck some of it may be.