[slamdesu]

Sure but that isn't her argument. The number of studies that attempt to demonstrate some fundamental difference between the sexes vastly outnumber claims of similarity, and those disproportionate claims need to be addressed. The book goes through the studies that are touted as the most demonstrable difference in the sexes (tests on empathy) and shows how they're flawed and once you control for that flaw there is no demonstrable difference between the sexes.

[nerfhammer]

> The book goes through the studies that are touted as the most demonstrable difference in the sexes (tests on empathy)

Touted as such by whom? It sounds like just Baron-Cohen et al. Your comment gave the impression that "all" studies of gender differences have been refuted.

The most well-known, replicated, large effect study that I'm aware of I searched for and didn't find any reference to in her book. http://www.elainehatfield.com/79.pdf

[slamdesu]

I assume you're not using this as an example of a study which demonstrates an _inherent_ difference in the sexes..? (it isn't, this study is about as valuable as showing that the mean hair length of females is longer than males. It is an observation of a socialised group. This is irrelevant to the debate about nature vs nurture about sex differences) And yes Baron-Cohen pioneered the notion of the male and female brain. Of course 'scientific' justifications for sexism existed before Baron-Cohen however his studies, and ideas similar to his, dominate scientifically justified sexism at the moment (see: any discussion on womens' inherent lack of logical thinking and hence their role as caregivers and not programmers)