Instead, perceive yourself as incapable on average. That's not limiting at all.
-You never actually refute "TheLarch"'s point. Instead you bring down the conversation with unwarranted sarcasm and seem to completely misconstrue the argument. Despite this your comment is positive while the comment that actually contributed to the conversation is downvoted. You could have easily argued their assumptions but chose not to for reasons I might guess at in my next point.
-You essentially take the position that two possibilities exist, A) Institutionalized sexism is the main cause of most gender disparities when it comes to career demographics and definitely not personal choice (even if influenced by social conditioning), or B) Women are incapable on average. Judging by the harshness of your comment I can only assume that you don't that the person you are responding to might consider more possibilities.
This type of thinking is dangerous because it leaves no room for the other side to be simply incorrect. It ceases to be a matter of facts or logic and becomes a matter of morality with anyone who disagrees with you on the wrong side of the moral spectrum. Now anyone who challenges your viewpoint can conveniently be regarded as an immoral person and have their ideas ignored, hidden, or personally mocked.
Your list, if true, suggests that we should keep males around only for breeding purposes, and even that only until we figure out how to get by without them.
No, I don't think so. Or at least it's not needed to be a good programmer. It's just that if you also have other qualities people don't have to excuse your behavior by how good a programmer you are.
Of course there is also people who hide their decision behind the idea of efficiency.