[frotak]

The irony of your closing statement ("any result that just so happens....to agree with preconceived notions about "how things are" should be considered extremely suspicious and scrutinised....and noone who really wants to understand the relevant subjects should feel comfortable accepting such results as settled") is that such "settled" facts in the scientific community are exactly the things that Cahill has been challenging in the neuroscience field.

Specifically to his point that:

> the rationale was there aren’t any differences between males and females, so you avoid the unnecessarily complicated feature of the female hormonal cycle and study the male.

In other words...the "settled" science actually excludes the explicit study of, and furtherance of our understanding of, the female brain. Which in turn leads to a lessened ability to treat and address all sorts of conditions.

So by all means decry bias...but be aware that bias can be introduced by scientists wanting to cut corners and make research faster and easier so they can publish more just as much as they can be introduced by gender superiority zealots.

[YeGoblynQueenne]

Well, Cahill has his opinions, Ripon has hers. Obviously there is a controversy on this issue, between experts on the matter, and I am not equipped to resolve it, or even to know who is representing some kind of consensus opinion. Basically, I know a couple of things about computers. I don't feel I have the knowledge to weigh in on any other scientific subjects.

That said, I have to observe that if the matter was settled the way Cahill claims it is, Nature wouldn't be publishing dithyrambs for Ripon's book, and Cahill wouldn't be publishing his own article on Quillete. It would rather be the other way. It's Quillette that's know to court controversy and Nature that's know to be as controversial as a pot of instant noodles.