It is kind of true in everything. Even hobbies that are typically dominated by women, like say cooking for example, think of the most famous chefs, and the best of the best are usually men.

I think the reasoning for this, while you could take the misogynist take that women are worse than men, you could also take a misandrist take and say it is "because only men are stupid enough to devote their lives to being the best a pointless game"

And there is probably some truth to that.

I don't think you will find an inerrant advantage in men or women when it comes to chess ability, and certainly there is no physical safety argument to be made for not allowing them to compete together if they wish.

I think just in general, across the entire population, you will find that men are more likely to dedicate inordinate amounts of time and energy towards doing one specific thing that they like in an attempt to be the best at it, doesn't really matter what it is. Women I think tend to be a bit more "sensible" and have more balanced interests and hobbies, but when you get to the extremes of the curve towards the best of the best, that does mean women are statistically at a disadvantage.

Now of course most men are not going to want to put in the time and effort to become the worlds best chess player same as most women, but since more men than women are willing to do that, the gender gap at high levels of play if you will becomes much more apparent.

I also think this is the same reason why you will see more male CEO than women even if you remove social and legal barriers towards women participating in society. All things being equal I think that you will see statistical differences in what women want to pursue if given the choice and while it sounds "bad" I think that women are typically less driven towards competition than men, which means in any sort of competitive environment they will see themselves at a statistical disadvantage.