Judit is impressive, but not for the reason most people think heh.
Statistically females are more interested in people and less interested in things. So given a free choice, most of them will apply their talents outside of chess (and STEM fields).
Many liberals (and I'm a liberal myself, just not a stupid one) want to pretend there is no difference between genders, so Judit's accomplishments weight on the side of equality.
But it's more the exception that proves the rule. She's amazing, and worth ranking in the legendary category, precisely because women aren't as predisposed to chess excellence. Not because they're less intelligent, but because of 2 things:
1: Males dominate the extremes. That means negative things too like suicide and low IQ
2: Women are statistically less interested in things and more interested in people
If your gender is statistically bad at chess, as the female gender is, it's not something to be upset over. It means you care about things like people.
You're arguing it both ways...either women are just "statistically uninterested" in chess, or women are "bad" at chess. It can't be both.
Polgar proved it's the former, not the latter. If there were more interest from women, and more inclusivity from men, maybe you'd have 1500-ish women who played at 2500+ rating (around the current number of GMs worldwide), and there would be women in the top 10 all the time. Instead there are 1200-1500 men at 2500+ and 12 women rated that high.
You can posit that women would not want to play because they are more interested in people, not things. But that's a cop-out, and just another way of saying that women don't value anything but relationships (and by extension, children/family). Statistically a woman may value these things by default more than the average man, but there is plenty of overlap in that Venn diagram, and women are as multi-dimensional as men are.
Nobody will know how many women might be potential chess champions until the sociological hurdles are pretty much gone. Pretty much the same way that nobody will know how many men actually would like the color pink if they were not brought up in a world that tells them pink isn't a masculine color and they will be seen as weak if they wear it/like it. Being dismissed by ton of men ("your brain is not built right for playing chess, but don't fret, it's just statistics, nothing about you personally") and being hit on by another ton of men when playing chess as a woman is a pretty big disincentive to participate, and the higher your ranking goes, the more the ratio shifts from being hit on (which at least is flattering) to being dismissed in every tournament you play in. When a woman gets to 2500 rating, they are looking at the being 1 a hundred every time they choose to venture outside the women's events. So, it's no big mystery why they do not.
P.S. I put my ex-wife through school to become a microbiologist, and today she is working for the company that makes the best Covid-19 test on the market. Microbiology was her natural leaning in terms of the degree she wanted to go after. It's much less nature and lot more nurture in terms of why women fall into the "liberal arts" and "people person" professions. Women tend to go where they feel safe and accepted...hey...just like men do. Like all human beings do. The difference is that men generally feel safe and accepted almost anywhere. It's just the evolution of society. Women still have to worry every time they walk through a deserted parking lot...it's a completely different mindset, but it's *not* a completely different brain 
.
if you look at the work of Ada Lovelace, it is vastly beyond many mathematicians, even discrete mathematicians; but still 170 years later young women are told technical subjects are not for them.
Who is telling them this?
As far as I can tell, no one is saying this. Maybe 1 or two backward countries. Overwhelmingly women are told the opposite, and are being given opportunities.
Women don't preform as well for the same reason men preform worse... males are more represented on the extremes. Einsteins are more often male... and college drop outs, suicide victims, and drooling idiots are more often male.
Statistically, males are also more interested in STEM subjects as evidenced by the fact that countries with the most equality (see Scandinavia) have a higher disparity between genders in STEM fields. Meanwhile countries like Iran have the least.
The fact is no one is telling young girls math is not for them. If anything it's the opposite.
That doesn't mean there are historical injustices we can help correct by recognizing women who advanced their field. I'm all for that. I'm all for celebrating someone like Judit Polgar... but let's not pretend there are no female Kasparovs because of oppression. There are no female Kasparovs because, for example, according to Judit and Susan, the most talented Polgar sister was Sofia, and she quit before she was even a GM, and went into art.