[pron]

> 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.

[leereeves]

> 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.

[pron]

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.

[leereeves]

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.

[pron]

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?

[leereeves]

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?

[pron]

> 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.