Neuroscientist Larry Cahill on the ‘neurosexism’ debate
I think the article misrepresents the feminist position a bit. When they protest the study of &quot;sex differences&quot;, it&#x27;s not (usually) in a flat-earth or creationist sense of literally denying the science and claiming a-priori that all brains are identical.<p>Rather, they are observing that the notion of one sex being biologically &quot;superior&quot; (or at least more suitable for high-prestige roles) has a long and oppressive history in our society, and that incautious &quot;research&quot; can be used to bolster types of sexism that we had hoped were behind us. Indeed, we see this happening on this very site all the time, whenever the topic comes up.<p>It&#x27;s not that sex differences might not exist. It&#x27;s that the instant you publish anything on the the topic, conservatives will inevitably and immediately latch onto it as proof that the traditional gender roles have been correct all along. Even if that&#x27;s not what the studies show (and there&#x27;s actually no reason to think they would, as the article points out.)<p>Basically, the point of feminists is that society is so fraught on this issue, and there&#x27;s so much latent bias, that it is extremely difficult to perform research objectively, let alone have it be received objectively and proportionately by an audience outside the field.