In the corrected version of their 2018 article, Stoet and Geary (Corrigendum issued 2019) responded to our identification of a mismatch between their numbers for women in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) with tertiary degrees and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO, 2015) data they sourced. They clarified that their numbers do not represent the percentage of women among STEM graduates, as they had originally stated. Rather, their numbers represent a ratio, which they claim measures the “propensity” for women compared with men to earn a tertiary degree in STEM in a given country (p. 584). The use of this measure in combination with the Global Gender Gap Index (GGGI), a contested (Else-Quest & Hamilton, 2018; Hawken & Munck, 2013) composite measure of nationlevel gender equality increasingly employed in similar studies advancing the hypothesis of a gender-equality paradox (e.g., Falk & Hermle, 2018), raises methodological and empirical questions about their claims that there is a gender-equality paradox in STEM and that a larger gender gap in STEM achievement in high genderequality countries is evidence of baseline sex differences in career and educational preferences.

中文翻译：

---

科学、技术、工程和数学 (STEM) 中是否存在性别平等悖论？对斯托特和吉尔里研究的评论 (2018)

在他们 2018 年文章的更正版本中，Stoet 和 Geary（2019 年发布的勘误表）回应了我们发现她们在科学、技术、工程和数学 (STEM) 领域拥有高等教育学位的女性人数与联合国教育、科学与文化组织（联合国教科文组织，2015 年）的数据来源。他们澄清说，他们的数字并不代表 STEM 毕业生中女性的百分比，正如他们最初所说的那样。相反，他们的数字代表了一个比率，他们声称该比率衡量的是女性与男性在特定国家/地区获得 STEM 高等教育学位的“倾向”（第 584 页）。将此衡量标准与全球性别差距指数 (GGGI) 结合使用，这是一个有争议的 (Else-Quest & Hamilton, 2018; Hawken & Munck,