Earlier quoted context omitted.
Technique is super important. Female climbers obviously don't have the same kind of strength as men, which is why they climb differently. That doesn't mean that they're (much) worse than their male competitors.
In terms of strength to weight ratio, top women are pretty damn good, in sport they're only a couple letter grades behind the top men, and there are only 3 men in history who have outclimbed the best female climber, and only Adam Ondra, who is truly a genius of gymnastic climbing has sent 5.15D. At that level their technique is pretty close to being maxed out. They spend months, sometimes years training specifically…
There's a study that looked into this for chess and found that for the amount of people who actually stick at it, 96% of the the split in chess can be accounted for by it being what you would expect for the amount of men and women playing.
>Why are (the best) women so good at chess? Participation rates and gender differences in intellectual domains
>A popular explanation for the small number of women at the top level of intellectually demanding activities from chess to science appeals to biological differences in the intellectual abilities of men and women. An alternative explanation is that the extreme values in a large sample are likely to be greater than those in a small one. Although the performance of the 100 best German male chess players is better than that of the 100 best German women, we show that 96 per cent of the observed difference would be expected given the much greater number of men who play chess. There is little left for biological or cultural explanations to account for. In science, where there are many more male than female participants, this statistical sampling explanation, rather than differences in intellectual ability, may also be the main reason why women are under-represented at the top end.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/276/1659/1161