1. It can be reasonably agreed that (as of 2018) becoming a billionaire with a successful (profitable; influential) business empire is the peak of business success.
2. Women encounter more prejudice/sexism in business than men.
3. Becoming a self-made billionaire is more challenging as a female than a male.
4. There are both male and female self-made billionaires.
The conclusion is that women can be at least as competent as men in business.
Your conclusion sets a precise numerical (in)equality: Female competence >= Male competence. Your data is entirely non existent and/ or handwavy.
Let's assume that 1) is a good metric. Then 2) needs to be argued for and quantified. 3) follows from the (missing) quantification of 2, plus some other parameter for its impact. 4) Also needs to be numerically quantified: what's the ratio between male and female billionaires?
So we're back at square one: you believe your parameters to be whatever they need to be to make your conclusion true. That doesn't prove much, does it?
1. It can be reasonably agreed that (as of 2018) becoming a billionaire with a successful (profitable; influential) business empire is the peak of business success.
2. Women encounter more prejudice/sexism in business than men.
3. Becoming a self-made billionaire is more challenging as a female than a male.
4. There are both male and female self-made billionaires.
The conclusion is that women can be at least as competent as men in business.