Commenting on my post about single-sex education, RKU snarks:
Didn't Matt just do a posting yesterday strongly implying that any claim of an innate statistical difference in female/male mental/psychological behavior was "sexist"?
This seems to be a favorite tactic of the right. Apparently, if I'm going to favorably cite someone as saying that "boys and girls are, on average, at different levels of lanugage and motor development when they enter school" then I also can't object to writing op-eds that argue, without evidence, that women are stupider than men. Because, clearly, either you're a die-hard egalitarian blank slater or else it's no fair objecting to sexism. The flaw here should be clear. Yes "boys and girls are (on average) different," but, no, cutting-edge neuroscience does not back up all your long-held prejudices.