By that logic anyone criticizing a company's hiring practices must be fired.
If someone claims their employer discriminates against black candidates, you must equally infer they think some of their white coworkers have been let in because of weakened standards, and out they go...
I mean, I'll admit there is a small core of logic there, but I think it's pushed absurdly far. Wouldn't it make more sense if hiring standards could be discussed without firing anyone who wants to change them?
> The current fashion is that there are basically NO biological sex-type differences; that any sex-type differences are socially imposed and generally disadvantageous to women.
It's important to know that the existence of non physical systematic differences between male and female is as uncontroversial among scientists in the field as climate change is in that field.
It's easy to be "pro science" when science confirms what you already believe. When it says you're wrong is when you show how pro science you really are!
PS The mental and psychological male/female differences are all statistical with substantial overlap. Much like how men are on average about 5 inches taller than women, but there are many tall women and short men.
"Research on stereotype threat and women’s performance on math tests is one example where publication bias undermines the findings in a seminal study that produced a large literature of studies on gender differences in math performance. After correcting for publication bias, this literature shows very little evidence that stereotype threat has a notable and practically significant effect on women’s math performance (Flore & Wicherts, 2014)."
But I hear what you're saying, and I agree that this post was needlessly confrontational. I'll try to be a better HN citizen!