I read this elsewhere, first, and wondered if Space.com would pick it up. Sorry to say that it did.
The article makes a lot of silly arguments about "women consuming less resources than men", but doesn't admit that is based on the difference in the average sizes of men and women, not some metabolic trait differences. But, we have long excluded extra large men from fighter aircraft cockpits by size restrictions, and could just as easily design a space craft for midget men or women if that was a major priority in the design.
The real issue is that the people chosen have the right expertise and good health and fitness to perform under stressful conditions, maybe with some limitations on size, but certainly not on sex. There are both men and women who qualify, and the choice needs to be made on the individuals, not their statistical group memberships.
Regarding women getting along in groups better than men - again with the inapplicable averages. There are plenty of examples of women criminals, psychopaths, etc. and plenty of examples of team-players among men. The abilities of individual candidates need to be assessed, not their membership in various statistical groups.
So, why are we reading this in Space.com? Is Space.com putting the current political fads at a higher priority than actual science? And how has "equal opportunity" turned into "exclude the men", anyway? Seems hypocritical as well as unscientific.