I mean, it is an opinion article. So yeah, that is his opinion based on the facts on the ground we can all agree on (women run primary school education, women now have a larger foothold in liberal arts academia, mental health, medical schools, hospitals, and medical clinics - and there has been significant deference given by those industries to students’/patients’ claims about the importance of their “identities”). How easily can that opinion he has come up with that explains those facts be proven? I don’t know, but that’s not the point. It’s an opinion about how those facts came about. Are those facts hard for you to swallow, and that is why the opinion is especially jarring?
To a certain extent, that’s every single opinion article on anything related to sex generalities. Men and women overlap more than they are different. We can all agree on the extremes (no one argues that there should be an equal distribution of men and women in prison and men and women teaching kindergarten), but can’t we also agree there are more subtle differences we can explore without immediately jumping to the conclusion that someone is misogynist for pointing one of those differences out?
You can call something reductionist, but that, in and of itself, doesn’t make it automatically “anti” the thing it is reducing. If you were one of the people that thought James Damore’s google memo was anti-woman, then of course this 1,000 word article is also anti-woman. But if you don’t think James Damore was being anti-woman, then maybe you should take a step back on this one and see specifically what it is that Prager is really saying instead of letting the clickbaity headline make up your mind for you.