I question the supposed 'lesson' that the article says women drew from their 'books that changed them'. Do Pride and Prejudice and Jane Eyre teach women that 'yes, they will marry the wealthy, handsome man next door and live happily ever after'(sic)? No - surely they teach the exact opposite of this. They very clearly say that women should be true to their own choices and standards, even if it means losing the man they are attracted to. They also say that men who seem forbidding and alien may be better choices than superficially virtuous and charming men. In fact how frickin' wrong can a Guardian article be?
My dad read a lot of SF when I was a kid, and I used to nick his library books and read them at an unsuitably young age. Do you remember the yellow Gollancz SF series? I must have read hundreds of them. I think they did transform me, to the extent that I don't know what I would have been like without my dad's SF. I think my ideas about gender, politics, religion, science, philosophy - everything really - were influenced by those books. Writers like Sturgeon and Vonnegut and Bradbury, and then a bit later female writers like Le Guin. Lots and lots of short stories too. I think rather than giving me any particular answers they gave me the idea that answers are provisional on a time and place.
Also, feminist blogger Echidne saves me the bother of pointing out that like most 'proofs' that men and women are different this was a rubbish piece of research. Still interesting though.
ETA - meant to say - what books transformed you? or is that a silly idea, that a book can change you?