I'm a female interrupter. I have two adult sons. We have lively conversations.
I try to be less aggressive about it in other social settings. I currently attend public meetings and my tendency to interject definitely stands out.
I work at finding good openings to make my point, reminding myself that I'm not the only one with something intelligent to say, reminding myself that there will be other opportunities to make a point, etc.
Not everything needs to be said right here, right now. That's not even effective communication in many cases.
It's possible family members get interrupted more by female members if that's the only safe outlet some women can find. Sexism is alive and well and significantly impacts communication in myriad ways.
I've definitely witnessed this, but I think these are two separate phenomena of "interruption". The COI refers to a case where I interrupt because I understand and I don't require additional elaboration. The way I've often seen women interrupted is more like the interrupter wasn't really listening to the speaker at all and is just arbitrarily taking control of the conversation.
I'd read your point as splitting hairs. In either case, the interruption has happened because of the belief that the speaker is not contributing new, valuable information to the conversation.
On the contrary, I would say that it makes a large difference whether someone interrupts me because they have understood the idea I was trying to communicate, or because they never cared about that idea in the first place.
The research on the subject goes back 50 years to the 1970s and is essentially considered open and shut.
As a rule of thumb, men will interrupt women 3x as much as women will interrupt men.
You can Google and read dozens of studies over decades all repeatedly confirming it in various cultures, countries, and jobs. It applies to women Supreme Court justices and to women janitors.
FWIW, instead of the confrontational "is there any reason to think", I feel like a more humble phrasing would come across better, especially since you didn't seem to know about the research on the subject. And knowledge of it is pretty widely known, as it comes up and is discussed frequently. A recent example were the Democratic debates where, once again, the same dynamic played out and was discussed in the popular media.
I'm well aware of the phenomenon but it is not the kind of interruption I'm talking about.
To be clear, I'm talking about men-interrupting-men-and-women-because-they-are-interrupters vs women-interrupting-men-and-women-because-they-are-interrupters, and not men-interrupting-women-because-they-are-sexist. The context of the article is the former, clearly.
Also, I don't consider "is there any reason to think" to be confrontational.
I think you are misunderstanding the research. It shows exactly what you are talking about; the link discusses just one recent subset of the phenomenon.
I'm thinking of this in the context of my mother, who is let's say a well-established interrupter.