> There is not a single doubt that biology dominates and partially determines psychology If it "dominates" it's inherent it (at least) "partially determines",

> There is not a single doubt that biology dominates and partially determines psychology If it "dominates" it's inherent it (at least) "partially determines", reducing your assertion to "There is not a single doubt biology dominates psychology," which is basically untenable, scientifically. > I am principal and scientific. No. No you're not, unless you actually are a principal, but then it has no bearing the matter at hand. You approach is also not very scientific. > There are evolutional and biological reasons why this or that aspect of sex differences emerged and what is for. Whatever is valid for all species applies to humans too, no matter what liberal arts graduates would say about man's superiority. Let's cut your unsound and poorly constructed argument short here: I cede this proposition. That means, for the sake of argument, I will assume it as completely sound and correct. Now, explain to me, in detail, how this (now assumed true) inequality of the sexes leads to one of them being unable to code (or assume various complex technical tasks) as well as the other, purely from biological differences. I'll save you the trouble. You can't, because if you could, you wouldn't be wildly speculating about it online. You'd be writing scientific papers about it. Your larger argument boils down to: -men and women are biologically different, -there are difference between men and women -therefore these difference must be biological It's a fallacy. Scientifically rigorous arguments are not build around fallacies. P.S. principled and scientific minds usually shy away from using laden and denigrating terms in their arguments.