I see at least one obvious problem: the widely cited conclusions are absurd. Not to mention, unfounded.
We have known about structural differences in the brains of men and women for some time : for example, that women have proportionally more grey matter (brain cells) and men more white (connective tissue). However, given that we have such limited understanding of how brains work, we have no basis for drawing conclusions about what any such structural differences might mean. To jump from "the left and right hemispheres are better connected in women" to "women are more analytical AND intuitive" is patently absurd. About as valid as the "science" of 19th century phrenology.
I am interested in brain lateralisation, and I find it unsurprising that women's brains might be more highly "integrated" than men's are, and we know of at least one mechanism for mediating such differences, in that testosterone is neurotoxic and effectively "prunes" adolescent male brains more severely than is the case for adolescent non-male brains, and that this process probably starts
in utero. However, we don't know enough to draw sound conclusions about innate gender-specific abilities / disabilities that might arise thereby or whether these might be acquired more by nature or nurture, especially when research exists which overturns long-held assumptions about "innate" differences in, for example, math ability. (
http://healthland.time.com/2011/08/30/the-math-gender-gap-nurture-can-trump-nature/)
What we
can be certain of, is that human brains are highly plastic by default and that individual differences are much more significant than those that can be attributed to gender. Also that the effects of nurture on the postnatal brain are at least, if not more, important then those of nature in determining adult capacities. We know, for example, that a brain primed by nature to excel in the use of language will nevertheless result in a completely dumb, illiterate adult if the critical period for acquiring language does not include appropriate stimuli / learning experiences. Above all else, we are creatures with an enhanced capacity to learn from others. I believe that innate differences in our capacity to acquire different skills owe more to typological difference than to gender. In fact, statistics prove this to be the case. The best people in any field outperform the vast majority of the population (of either gender). This would not be true if gender were more highly deterministic than other factors.
What is odd is that highlander would try to use this study to support his prejudices, when it actually appears to do the opposite. I guess he got distracted by the headline and ignored the content. A common enough mistake.