> I’m not going to spend any length of time on (1); if anyone wishes to provide details as to how nearly every statement about gender in that entire document is actively incorrect,¹ and flies directly in the face of all research done in the field for decades, they should go for it. But I am neither a biologist, a psychologist, nor a sociologist, so I’ll leave that to someone else.
Yes? He's admitting he doesn't have the expertise to address that. Evo-psych is definitely not a generally accepted scientific field, so I don't really take issue with his off hand dismissal.
As far as I understood the original manifesto was about the average population characteristics of currently existing men and women, so those studies shouldn't have anything to do with Evo-psych, I mean they would be valid even if evolution didn't exist.
There was a passing mention of evolutionary psychology in one of the points where the author was explaining other reasons for the gender disparity.
Someone asked you to link to resources that specifically prove parts of the manifesto as wrong.
And you replied with a blog that literally says that they will not engage in any discussion on the issues that are under contention.
Any part of the manifesto. And the blog post addresses 2 out of 3 parts of it.