>> he's trying to find a biological justification to exclude a class of people from a high-status career. >> avoiding the content of the article itself. That'

>> he's trying to find a biological justification to exclude a class of people from a high-status career. >> avoiding the content of the article itself. That's what I'm talking about. I also think his ideas wouldn't be terribly effective, but I think villifying and dismissing him just for saying it does more harm than him saying it. That's why there are people focusing on the reaction. It doesn't really matter who the onus is on to justify his claims if you're not going to actually listen to anyone who disagrees with you anyway. And you can't claim you actually listened, because you explicitly said he was arguing in favor of excluding people based on class. That's what you heard from all of his suggestions to approach inclusion a different way.