[DalaiObama]

> 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.

[bayonetz]

> When it says you're wrong is when you show how pro science you really are!

That's key. It's perhaps one of the main barriers to exploring this topic. I think it expresses itself mostly unconsciously. It can be terrifying to scrutinize differences and know whatever sub-type you happen to be (man, woman, black, white, etc.) could "come up short" according to some cultural ideal. It's even more terrifying knowing that the measurements and measurers sometimes rig the outcomes of said scrutinizations. I'd hope we'd just try to control and address these terrors rather than stop trying to objectively characterize our differences altogether.

[gehwartzen]

Agree fully. I think this is abundantly evident in the fact that there is usually very little social and individual push back when exploring the cognitive/physical/behavioral differences between the sexes of almost any other animal. It's just when these differences are explored in humans that it becomes an issue.