I see what the test is trying to accomplish – that writing about women in science should be about their scientific achievements, and not undermined by some implicit or accidental, “not bad for a mother” statement. But at the same time, you’re left with a very dry biography. At some point, it’s not so much about the person as their discovery.
To think of it another way, if there were a challenge to write about Galois without even hinting about his age, sexuality, or anything you would avoid in a modern job interview then it would be easy to accomplish. But it would also gloss over the most interesting story of his life: how a twenty-year-old genius committed some amazing idea to paper after being snookered into a duel that would lead to his death over a bad love affair. Let’s face it, unless you are really interested in Galois groups, that’s the most interesting story.
So while we need to be sure not to minimize the importance of the work, we need to also strike a balance that recognizes them as people with their own interesting stories. Sometimes (though not always or often) that will be tied up with family life or women’s roles in their society.