False. Its just a hypothesis that is based on selective statistical data and is not supported by all studies - in fact there is a ton of research that has found no difference in variability between the sexes (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289616301003https://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2011/12/it-doesnt-add
this is just a few, a lot of research that has found no difference goes unpublished because its not ~interesting~ enough) and some of the studies that has found a "difference" can be disproven by statistical analysis of it (like do an F-test to understand how significant the difference actually is). Moreover its based solely on statistical evidence (this is the weakest form of scientifical proof, because it can be easily influenced by environmental/societal factors and the any interpretation of statistics is always speculational, also there is a meta analysis that has found a correlation between participation of females in the labour force and their variability https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40536-019-0070-9
ie a study that has found a _social_ reason behind such disproportional distribution) and it lacks biological proof or reason for existing (variability is beneficial for everyone not just males and bigger morphological variability doesnt equal bigger variability in everything https://elifesciences.org/articles/63170
this study is on mice but it found bigger female variability in 2 traits, meanwhile males had larger distribution only in 1 trait).
Seriously pls do your research before believing "data" from dailymail.com and propaganding it, it really helps.