[read_if_gay_]

> Please Google "confounding factors."

sigh That's exactly what I was saying in my last sentence.

You should take a minute to actually understand the post you're replying to. Especially if, as you almost figured out yourself, you have a general tendency to strawman and be snide about it.

[harry8]

>I must be a terrible person because all that "women are like this, whereas men are like that" stuff strikes me as epically sexist and extremely shallow.

Confounding factors are THE thing that make this kind of thing utter bullsht even if* there's data. But there isn't data.

Do you understand the point I made that you responded to now? I'll ignore the condescension in your response above because it's against the rules around here to respond to it other than by noting it.

[read_if_gay_]

So for the sake of the argument let's make up a utopian scenario "group X is Y, but it is so exclusively because of this clearly identified confounding factor Z".

It obviously doesn't follow that group X isn't Y anymore. It just means group X is Y and Z.

If someone says "let's accomodate group X by accomodating Y-ness", and you go and say that's shallow, X-ist, utter bullshit, then you are in denial that group X is Y.

> But there isn't data.

Is this denial again?

> condescension

Sorry, I acknowledge that I was needlessly being a dick. But don't get on the high horse over it. It was just in response to you needlessly being a dick.