Hey, breakfight, hope you aren't assuming I'm picking an argument with you. I'm reading a bit of combative tone in your posts -- I just thought the article was interesting and worth posting, seeing as how "why do men/boys do xyz better than women/girls" has to be the #2 most annoyingly prevalent question in internet discussion forums dominated by males (right after "does size matter")... it is an interesting bit of research to toss into the mix.
Regarding your qeustion about How can it be argued that the lack of women in the top levels of chess is due to the lack of women who play? etc -- the way I read it, they are saying the more people in a population that participate in an activity, the greater likelihood that excellent or superior-performing members of that population will be found to participate and will rise to the top (and vice versa). So long as far fewer women overall play than men there will be that much less of a chance that the individual girls/women who could be superior players will find their way into the ranks in the first place, then go on to play, persist and achieve at the highest levels. You gotta be in it to win it. The chances that out of a million men you will find the next Bobby Fischer is greater than the chances that out of a thousand women you will find the first Barbie Fischer.
But your point about Chess is a game that involves two players. It isn't a battle between two groups, but rather two individuals.... is very well taken. Great point.
On the contrary, an argument is what I am seeking. But you need not fear as I am not seeking an argument that revolves around the hanging pieces of discourse - the ad hominem 
My problem with the article is that while it is true that you have to be in it to win it, to say that one would win it just by being in it is unsound.
a half glass of water could be say half empty or half filled? Depends on individuals' school of though! Bobby was lived for chess and he died with chess!
Let those of us lacking in talent, genius or sheer whatchamacallit take consolation where we can find it. With our characteristic panache let us gift the world with our uniquely facile critique of those exemplars of human-all-too-human folly and foible: Bobby Fischer and women.
Bobby Fischer the man albeit immortal is safely dead. “Women” means all female adults but no one in particular. While using “women” to kick Fischer, let us tar them with the brush that we hand-off to Fischer.
Although “women” will still be with us and the games of Bobby Fischer studied and replayed countless times by future generations of chessplayers yet to be “born of woman”, let us take comfort in knowing that we have conquered the moral high-ground of political correctness.
Stay tuned for our regularly scheduled edumacational forum debates on such topics as:
-- why Russian-schooled masters are still teaching chess despite Kotov;
-- why Steinitz was not an American and just how crazy was Morphy;
-- why Howard Staunton was naughty but Staunton chessmen are nice;
-- why we despise Alexander Alekhine even more than Bobby Fischer and/or women;
-- why chessplayers are nothing more than “addictive personalities”;
-- what every self-hating chessplayer should know about chess;
-- how even pesky Caïssa understands that chess is the antithesis of everything feminine.