Here is a possible edit, incorporating comments from both the main question and this question, that might help clarify your point and address concerns about the question. I'm not going to just make the edit because there's only one chance at getting put into the post-edit re-open queue, but please feel free to adopt any of it that you think is useful.
Note that I did add the second footnote wholesale, to address questions about "what does representative mean?" Of course you are free to edit or ignore that bit (or any other part of the suggested rewrite) if it doesn't match your intent.
What the edited question would look like:
According to the Nature article "LGBTQ scientists are still left out"
there are some "heteronormative assumptions" in the STEM field which artificially suppress the number of LGBTQ people in the field. This view of the sciences1 doesn't match my own experience and anecdotal evidence. (I have seen evidence of a sexism issue but it is a separate issue from LGBT.) In my (admittedly subjective) experience, people in STEM tend to be more open-minded than any other profession.
The Nature article cites a few studies, but none seems to be directly on-point (one study focused on government workers rather than scientists in academia-proper, and another had results that were not statistically significant and whose authors admitted they had made mistakes). Again maybe I'm wrong, but I would like to see a more relevant peer review study (gender studies or social science) explaining this problem.
**What robust studies exist on the representation of LGBTQ individuals2 in STEM fields within academia?
1 The idea that STEM fields are especially constrained comes up in other contexts, too. For example, according to an opinion piece by Manil Suri published in the New York Times, in science it is also not appropriate to talk about hobbies.
Manil Suri is a famous scholar, his description of the situation in academia is worrying, and gives the impression that behavior is constrained and under close scrutiny.
Being too expressive of personal identity can be viewed as running counter to scientific neutrality. In competitive venues, where complete immersion in one’s field might be the promoted ideal, the mention of an extracurricular pursuit can even be seized upon as a lack of commitment. I remember a young mathematician at a prestigious research institute sharing his love for piano playing after hearing I wrote fiction. “Don’t tell anyone in my department I own a piano,” he requested in the next breath.
This is a shock to me because I perceived the STEM field as most openminded.
2Representation could measure the percentage of LGBTQ faculty in STEM fields in comparison to other academic disciplines, or something like dropout rates for LGBTQ students in STEM fields compared to dropout rates for other students.