[contrarian1234]

curious what you mean. i dont actually take any side on the original question. i dont really know enough to have an informed opinion - and im a bit skeptical one could prove anything given the confounding variables

but the idea that you cant even a-politically pose a question about biology - i dont really get the logic there. seems antiscientific

[thrance]

Issue is when MAGA people (Like Blow) say "women are biologically inclined towards X", it doesn't come from a place of geniune scientific curiosity, but rather a way to advance their misogynistic agenda. There is nothing you could ever say that would change their "opinion" on the matter.

Truth is, programming was women-dominated in its inception, but was taken over by men when programming the computer became more prestigious. Whatever biological factors at play here, they're completely overridden by sociological factors.

[harperlee]

I was just speaking generally, I also don't have a side there. But for clarity, what I meant is that templates to the tune of "[subset of people with X characteristic] are more / less prone to [Y characteristic]" can construct blatantly false sentences, and also sentences that, irrespective of whether they are true (or that they are falsifiable at all, as you add), have a heavy political penalty.

I also don't think that's bad - you can say blatantly racist things with that template, and I'm ok with those things not allowed to be said in lots of contexts.