[YeGoblynQueenne]

If you think about it, a 55/56 ratio (.98) is only commensurate with a distribution of mathematical talent by which the vast majority of women can't add 2 and 2 together.

Like, it would not even justified by women being "somewhat" less good at maths at the high level than men. Women would have to be really, really bad at maths for that to be a natural result.

[barry-cotter]

To see why this is not true think about the average difference in men and women’s height and the relative prevalence of men and women among people 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9m tall, etc.

[YeGoblynQueenne]

The difference with height is that you can train mathematical skill. For women to be trying, presumably as hard as the men, to become good enough to be elligible for a Fields medal, but (almost) never achieving it- they have to really suck at maths to begin with.

[barry-cotter]

Mathematical skill can be trainable without a huge difference in male/female representation implying women are unable to add two and two, your original bar for sucking at math.

There are many, many obviously trainable skills where the best men are very obviously superior to the best women, sports and athletics providing endless examples. I would be very happy just to finish a marathon but the Irish men’s world record is almost ten minutes faster than the woman’s world record.

[YeGoblynQueenne]

Malright. That was a dumb argument. Mine I mean.

[vinchuco]

Nature vs nurture.