It's goalpost changing. As always.
First was "women have contributed nothing" in any of the aforementioned fields. Then it was "nothing significant". And now it is nothing "major revolutionary". Add to that, it's comparing what Men have achieved over 3000 years to what women have achieved since being welcomed into these fields 100 years ago, and more realistically less than 50 if we are talking about widespread acceptance.
But saying Marie Curie's research and discoveries were not major and revolutionary for the atomic age is pretty damn farfetched.
Add to that, as women have gained acceptance in the sciences, they have contributed more and more. Look at Deborah Jin's work with fermions which probably would have won her a Nobel in physics had she not died. Or Lene Hau with slowing and stopping light, transferring qubits from light to matter to light, performing the first successful manipulations of coherent optical information. Barring a premature death she'll surely win a nobel shortly and her research alongside Bose-Einstein condensates may lead to revolutionary progress in the field of quantum information processing.
These are just a couple women from post-2000. It's pretty clear from the progress made by women in the sciences already, that as women gain more acceptance in the physical and applied sciences and start to make up a bigger percentage in these fields, they will make more and more significant contributions.
All one needs to look at is the number of female scientists winning things like MacArthur fellowships compared to 25 years ago. It's night and day.
The laughable part is trying to suggest that it is "a fact" that women haven't contributed and don't possess the capability to. And suggesting everyone who doesn't agree with this opinion is either a) in an "intellectual coma"; or b) in a "mental prison"; frankly, it's shameless.