[partition]

What could "use pedagogies that work better for each group" possibly mean other than racial and gender segregation?

Here I'll break this down into pseudocode.

    for each group in racial_gender_groups:
        teachWithMaterialFor(group);

Hell, she even cited "genetics" and "the way the brain is wired." You can't get any more blatant than this.

[kaitai]

Even if you assume the most intellectually lazy thing here, this is not yet an argument for segregated classes. For a lazy example, I'll use height: men are on average taller than women. It does not mean we need to segregate them from each other. It means that we need to put items at a level where most people can reach them, and provide mechanisms for people who are dramatically shorter than the norm. That's nice for the ladies, but also helps short guys, people of any gender who are in wheelchairs, little people, etc. All without segregating.

In my classes I have a lot of students educated under a Chinese system and then many educated under a US system. They come with different background. I don't segregate them, but I do actively think about how their learning experiences have been different and how I can challenge all with material that doesn't needlessly advantage one over the other. Every now and then I have a German or a Cameroonian and that seems to work fine for them too.

I'm not a fan of arguments from genetics or brain wiring for teaching. It gets lazy, as noted above. But men and women do have some difference, and training your Crossfit crew for pull-ups with methods that are based on your experiences of the genders' musculatures and previous experience with pull-ups is just sensible. A lot of our CS experiences come with cultural context, rather than from brain wiring. Fine.