Reply #55: calling bullshit on this genetic disparity argument [View All]

I don't see anyone fucking making a convicing argument about which genes are linked to math/science performance, and then showing how women are genetically lacking/phenotypically less expressive of these genes. In our entire genome, there exists a lot of "junk", redundant/unused material. This question of 1-2% of genetic material resulting in different species, aka the ape example, and thus extending it to the male/female genetic differences fails to take into account how much of that 1-2% is purely linked to physiological differences in anatomy (including encoding for hormone responses, menses, hair growth, etc etc etc) and how much of it actually takes into account differences in mental capacity. Can you look at a brain and tell me if it is male or female? So in short my argument is that nobody has: 1). made a convincing claim that they even KNOW which genes are linked to certain types of learning 2). that such discrete genes that differentiate math/science from literature/art abilities even EXIST 3.) show that this 1-2% genetic difference explains significant biologically innate reasons for why there are less women in math/science fields. To make irresponsible comments such as this asshole has made, a friggin' economist with no in-depth knowledge of what the fuck he is talking about, is putting the cart 5,000 miles in from of the horse. The horse in this case has been dead for 150 years, yet has been flogged by those wishing to resurrect 18th C Evolutionist arguments, twisting and perverting genetic research to do so.