It's really not difficult to recognise that two statements can be true.

On average men are better at x than women

Given a requirement for someone who is at least k good at x, one cannot make assumptions about an applicants abilities based on gender

Yes, but if you accept those two statements as true, then it follows that:

Given x-skill is uniformly distributed among all people, you'll expect more men than women in fields which require candidates at least k good at x.

A lot of people seem to have trouble with accepting that last thing.

> If you deny the existence of the second group, you also have to deny that there are biological differences between sexes (apart from reproductive organs), at which point I'd suggest going outside and taking a look around.

I don't deny the existence of the second group, but you'd have to prove that those biases are somehow justified, which is a hard task because there are very few completely universal and immutable biases (or at least biases that change at the same temporal and spatial pace as biology). So, in short, that seems to comprise of a very small, very insignificant, set of social biases.

> My issue with the way gender equality is currently discussed is that people deny the existence of biological differences and their consequences, treating everything as baseless cultural bias that needs to be conquered.

That's not how it's discussed. It's just that there is very little evidence that biological differences are a significant cause of the great power inequality we see in society between the sexes and among the races, and a lot of evidence to suggest that mutable social biases are by far the dominant cause. So there's very little reason to talk about the biological differences if so far they've not been shown to be too pertinent to the discussion of inequality.

> Which happens equally on both sides of the issue, and that makes the whole topic toxic.

But there is a big knowledge gap. Those in favor of feminism, while not immune from assholishness -- at least have decades of study to at least support the premise of their position, while those against have just their own personal feelings on the matter.

> they have to agree with observable reality - otherwise, they're just results of crap research.

They do.

> I've never personally seen being invoked, by either side

They're invoked often by the only side that has them. Most government policy choices refer at some point in their inception to academic studies.

> Given the state of psychology and social sciences, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest (and no, I don't approve or criticize research based on wich side it supports, I view all soft science research with very strong suspicion).

Suspicion is good, and it is quite probable that many specific findings are questionable, but when you're confronted with such a huge body of evidence -- from history, sociology, anthropology and psychology -- you must admit that it accounts to much more than a gut feeling (which is what the other side base their arguments on).

I'm quite suspicious about your statement that your side is supported by "such a huge body of evidence", whereas "the other side base their arguments on [...] a gut feeling".

I think from that we can safely assume that you (at best) massively overstate your position and massively understate your opponents.

I agree, particularly when pron claims that history is part of the huge body of evidence against gender biases.

pron, what is the evidence from history against traditional gender biases?

Why, that many of those biases disappeared completely after a social struggle. And I don't mean disappeared from the lawbooks, but from the minds of most individuals.

One notable example is the struggle for women's suffrage. For a long time it was a wide-held belief that women shouldn't vote because they lacked the mental state of mind for making decisions in matters of state. Then, after that idea slowly faded, other excuses were given from preserving tradition to encouraging women to stay at home because that's what's best for the children.

Other notable examples are women education, and especially allowing women to become doctors and lawyers (both medieval professions or earlier) only in the late 19th or early 20th century. It was obvious to everyone that women simply did not have the mental faculties required.

Yet, all of that has thankfully changed, society is better for it, and very few people still believe that women are unfit to vote or to be lawyers or physicians.

And yet through all of that, some gender differences have remained.

History is open to interpretation. I actually see what you mentioned as evidence against your position.

It's clear that people were able to overcome pervasive biases far more extreme than our current biases.

And yet some argue that implicit biases are responsible for the remaining differences.

History shows that bias can be overcome even when overt and widespread. The intractability of the remaining differences in a nation where bias is widely opposed suggests a cause stronger than bias.

> some gender differences have remained.

That just like saying that the fact there are a lot of things science has no answer for shows that those things can never be understood.

> some argue

Nobody who has studied the subject argues that, at least not regarding differences that greatly effect the change in the power distribution.

> The intractability of the remaining differences in a nation where bias is widely opposed suggests a cause stronger than bias.

No intractability. The struggle simply started with the big stuff, and now moves on. The pace of change hasn't slowed. History shows that anything that women or minorities struggled for, they eventually got and old entrenched biases dissipated.

> History shows that anything that women or minorities struggled for, they eventually got and old entrenched biases dissipated.

Absolutely. The differences between genders have far more to do with preferences than with abilities.

Women can have anything they choose, and, in aggregate, they choose different things than men.

The thing that really annoys me about a comment like this is that it completely ignores decades of research about why women choose what they choose. It also completely ignores decades of research about how anyone chooses anything.

It, like, lacks all hint of intellectual curiosity. It's like saying, "well, an electron behaves this way and a photon behaves that way because that's the way things are, and I'm done. Why is it behaving that way? I don't know and I don't care." And then I say, "but, you know, some smart people have actually studied this and have some interesting findings", and you say like, "meh, that's probably bad science because I've heard those stories about scientists fabricating data, so I'm not even going to look at this". Now, all of this would have been fine if people with no curiosity and no knowledge wouldn't have an opinion on the matter, but like I said, we have two sides where one has spent decades studying the subject in lots of disciplines, and the other is like "la la la, I don't want to hear, you're wrong".

The saddest part is that we even know why the other side behaves like this (it's the superposition of a bunch of well-known psychological phenomena), but are not allowed to say because that just makes them angrier.

The thing that really annoys me about a comment like yours is that it implies the choices people currently make are wrong. You’re suggesting that social scientists know better than the people themselves what they should choose.

And then you attempt to demonize anyone who disagrees with you.

Wrong? When did I say wrong? Being right or wrong is a value judgement. Believing the choices we make are free is, on the other hand, delusional and stands in complete opposition to what we've learned about this world.

And I don't demonize those who disagree with me, I just state the simple fact that most of them have zero knowledge of the matter and zero willingness to learn, yet an endless desire to argue about these things (that, honestly, they couldn't care less about except that occasionally something inconveniences them a bit) and the lack of shame to make definitive arguments based on absolutely nothing but wishful thinking, gut feeling and exaggeration.

I have actually had similar arguments in the past with people who were at least willing to argue about data and interpretation. But this?

Why did it annoy you when I said that "Women can have anything they choose, and, in aggregate, they choose different things than men”?

Do you disagree with that factually, or were you annoyed because you don't like the choices people make?

Would you, if you could, change other people’s choices by changing social pressures to fit your agenda?

> Do you disagree with that factually, or were you annoyed because you don't like the choices people make?

I don't disagree with that factually, but I strongly disagree with the implied sentiment that this is due to some law of nature, whereas research so far indicates that all human choices, and in particular "aggregate" or statistical choices made by groups are very, very strongly influenced by social pressure.

> Would you, if you could, change other people’s choices by changing social pressures to fit your agenda?

Thing is, research shows that any choice is made under external influences, they shift constantly, and so far those influences result in a very skewed balance of power. The thing we feminists care about is this distribution of power. Our agenda is to reduce the strong social pressures that actively maintain power inequality so that they maintain it less strongly. Opposing this agenda means you're in favor of keeping the social pressures as they are, i.e. continuing the ongoing practice of actively maintaining inequality.

> all human choices, and in particular "aggregate" or statistical choices made by groups are very, very strongly influenced by social pressure

Influenced, perhaps, yet recent history is full of people defying immense social pressure and even the law in order to do things they want to do. Subtle social pressure is clearly not the only, nor the strongest, influence.

> The thing we feminists care about is this distribution of power.

And so you try to influence other people, and in particular other women, to do what you want them to do.

That’s certainly common enough in both business and politics.

But it is advertising. Not science, not especially noble, nor a moral imperative.

> Opposing this agenda means you're in favor of keeping the social pressures as they are, i.e. continuing the ongoing practice of actively maintaining inequality.

No, I’m in favor of allowing, and helping, all people to do what they want to do (as long as it doesn’t harm others). I’m against controlling people to advance any agenda.

> And so you try to influence other people, and in particular other women, to do what you want them to do.

No, we try to influence you so that you wouldn't influence women to do what you want them to do, even though you may be doing this subconsciously.

> Not science

The science part is that we've uncovered the current influences, their origin, their development and their mechanisms and they turn out to be quite onerous.

> No, I’m in favor of allowing, and helping, all people to do what they want to do (as long as it doesn’t harm others). I’m against controlling people to advance any agenda.

So are we! Except, we are interested in how the world actually works, so we've spent a very long time studying it, and it turns out that society is not allowing (and certainly not helping) people do what they want to do, partly by making them want things that they wouldn't otherwise want. So we actually want the same thing, but we know more about the world than you do, hence our course of action to achieving that goal is radically different.

At this point, however, it is clear to me that there is no difference in values between us, but what separates us is a vast knowledge gap (I spent some years in graduate school studying certain aspects of this issue). I only hope that, one day, if you are truly sincere about your professed ideology, you will care about it enough and be blessed by intellectual curiosity to stop and ask yourself, "a lot of educated people who have spent years studying human society are saying that we are actively limiting women's choices (perhaps subconsciously) in a way that reduces their power; could they possibly be right?" and then you’d Google for it, read an article or two, and realize that you have been very, very wrong.

I’ll end with this Rebecca West quote: "I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat."

> "I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat."

There's a vast difference in values between us. I'm happy to let you do anything you want to do - even try to convince others that they should do what you want.

You accuse people who don't agree with you of being uneducated automatons who want women to be doormats.

> I'm happy to let you do anything you want to do

But the fact is that society really doesn't. So you're happy to let anyone do whatever they want only as long as it doesn't require society to change... And you'll go to great lengths not to learn the facts that would show you you're wrong just so that you could keep things the same.

> You accuse people

I don't accuse anyone of anything. I am stating the obvious fact that anyone who denies that society is actively limiting women's choices is simply ignorant of what we know on the subject. Just like anyone who thinks electrons couldn't possibly behave so strangely is simply uneducated of the facts. Not an automaton, just unfamiliar with the findings. It's not an accusation, either, but a simple statement of fact.

Just chiming in here, but it seems that your version of the feminist agenda puts little or no responsibility on women to actually choose.

It's all everyone else's fault.

Life isn't easy and difficult choices are a part of growing up, but, going against the grain brings with it a certain exhilaration. There is satisfaction and growth in proving ones worth for ones self.

I'm not saying it's fair but then again, fairness is pretty rare and that is a truth that touches everyone.

> but it seems that your version of the feminist agenda puts little or no responsibility on women to actually choose. It's all everyone else's fault.

No, your statement is just the usual anti-feminist complaint. Women have the same responsibilities as men. That doesn't change in the least bit the fact that society limits their choices much more than it does men, and keeps them away from seats of power.

> There is satisfaction and growth in proving ones worth for ones self.

Absolutely. So would you suggest society starts treating men like it treats women and whites like it treats blacks? Let other people have all the exhilaration for a change.

But seriously, this challenge applies to groups of people, too. So women are now going against the grain and trying to prove their collective worth.

> I'm not saying it's fair but then again, fairness is pretty rare and that is a truth that touches everyone.

Very true. Except that that doesn't mean we shouldn't fight for more fairness. Or are people supposed to just accept the places in society someone else has set for them?

> a simple statement of fact

But it's not. It's an (incorrect) assumption.

I have, in fact, read the research you're talking about. I'm familiar with the ideas you're advocating.

There's some truth to it. And a lot of problems. And a lot of research that invalidates your conclusions.

But there's an agenda at work, driving people who don't fall in line with that agenda out of academia. And having some familiarity with the ways "science" can be manipulated to suit an agenda, I'm not blinded or silenced when you say "research".

In the physical sciences, if research doesn't agree with theory, the theory is updated.

In the social "sciences", if research doesn't agree with theory, the researcher is discredited and the research ignored.