Yes, he does: from the context of the article it is clear that his targets are women who talk about "male science".
He needs to tell us a little more about the straw-woman he is attacking
It's not a "straw-woman" unless there really aren't any women who put forth the notion of "male science". Are you asserting that there are no such women? If there are, then that's who the author is talking about. "Those women are wrong", he is saying. It makes no sense to call this a "straw-woman".
and then proceeded to make a lot of dumb points about how women can't play chess and how male scientists are better.
He didn't say women can't play chess. And how can you dispute that the best scientists have been predominantly male?
Who are the feminists saying men should not be allowed to be scientists? If there are such people, are they growing in significance?
Irrelevant. If they exist, whoever they are, in how many numbers, they are wrong. And that's what the author is saying. What's your problem with saying this?
Why is there so much knee-jerk defensiveness about this article? Sheesh.