Recently, Picho-Kiroga (2021) published a meta-analysis on the effect of stereotype threat on females. Their conclusion was that the average effect size for stereotype threat studies was d = .28, but that effects are overstated because the majority of studies on stereotype threat in females include methodological characteristics that inflate the apparent effect size. In this response, I show that Picho-Kiroga et al. (2021) committed fundamental errors in their meta-analysis that undermine confidence in the article and warrant major corrections. But even if the data were not flawed, the conclusion that Picho-Kiroga et al. (2021) should have reached is that their results are most consistent with a population effect size of zero. There is no compelling evidence that stereotype threat is a real phenomenon in females. [For the original article, "Stereotype Threat and Its Problems: Theory Misspecification in Research, Consequences, and Remedies," see EJ1291949.]