And what if it's not? What's wrong with resisting the idea until we actually know?
Yeah, there are deep biological differences, no doubt. But the idea that women were fundamentally incapable of X for biological reasons has been the norm in history, and the history of women has been repeatedly proving that they can, in fact, do X.
Nothing at all.
> But the idea that women were fundamentally incapable of X for biological reasons has been the norm in history, and the history of women has been repeatedly proving that they can, in fact, do X.
No doubt, and I don't intend to assert that - in general - there is any specific thing that women can't do. But the idea that women would be more inclined/able/interested to do certain things, at certain times of their life, and that it might be different from men, for biological reasons, does not strike me as absurd. Look at the whole "biological clock" issue that prompts women to worry more about when they have kids, versus men, who mostly don't have to worry about that issue. (I'm just throwing that out there as an example, not saying that specifically means anything).
Anyway, to reiterate what I said in the other thread, in case anyone might misunderstand where I'm coming from: I am 100% in favor of gender equality and the idea that men and women should have equal access to opportunities and the ability to pursue their dreams.