The most insightful argument that I've heard so far about this subject is the fact that men and women are mostly identical when it comes to behavior.
However, statistically the overlap between men and women is not complete and this affects outcomes on the scale of a large population which are then used by each camp to support their case.

For example, you may find out that statistically men tend to be more interested in "things", while women tend to be more interested in "people".
This does not mean that the majority of men are not interested in people.
It just means that there is a statistical deviation between the number of women ending up working with "people" (teachers, nurses, psychologists, etc) and men working with "things" (software engineers, carpenters, plumbers, etc).

Similarly, on a big scale, statistically men can be shown to show a more physical aggressive nature than a similarly sized population of women.
Again, this is only statistics and the vast majority of men are as physically passive as women.
But this statistical difference explains why prisons are populated overwhelmingly by men.

The problem is that today's debates about this subject are charged with emotions and partisanship which makes it hard to have mature conversations based on scientific data.

My personal view is that we should try to find a balance between equality of opportunity between genders and also acknowledge that there are biological differences between men and women.
And no, I do not mean that one group is statistically more intelligent or superior to the other.

We must salute any attempt to have a mature and balanced discussion about this sensitive topic.