&gt;perhaps it&#x27;s a good idea to consider the possibility that they may be right<p>That&#x27;s fine, but why can&#x27;t the other side consider that they may be wrong?<p>The reason is actually simple:  on the whole, the brand of feminism we&#x27;re exposed to on the internet (that is, the west-coast, SanFran variety), is a very specific branch that vehemently opposes notions of essentialism.  That is, their <i>a priori</i> hypothesis is that men and women are exactly alike, but are shaped from birth by social conditioning.  As such, any <i>observed</i> discrepancy between men and women must <i>necessarily</i> be the result of sexism and mysoginy.<p>I don&#x27;t deny the existence of social conditioning, nor it&#x27;s problematic effects, but anti-essentialism is a political and sociological stance, not an empirical one.<p>I know your position comes from an honest desire to be compassionate and progressive, but it&#x27;s entirely missing the point of those who are tired of the relentless proselytizing.<p>It&#x27;s not about sour grapes; it&#x27;s about the fact that this recent wave of political correctness is laden with highly political social theory, and is lowering the level of discourse.  I&#x27;m sure you&#x27;re a great person (really!), but your appeal to emotion is ultimately favoring a cause with which you (hopefully) don&#x27;t agree.