In my experience, there are three problems with these debates (incl. the Google memo) that are huge enough that I believe it's best to avoid them entirely in th

In my experience, there are three problems with these debates (incl. the Google memo) that are huge enough that I believe it's best to avoid them entirely in the general public: 1. To many opinions in them are agenda-driven. There are racists and sexists, and if they are allowed to post pseudonymously they come out in troves. For example, the memo was recently discussed on /. and this turned very, very ugly. 2. Not enough people are aware that issues of social justice cannot be backed up by scientific facts in a straightforward way. They don't distinguish between preferences and capabilities, status quo and what would be desirable, etc. It's pointless to discuss such topics with anyone who isn't aware of these distinctions. Facts do not play the role in these debates that many seemingly scientifically-minded people believe they do. I can give examples, but don't want to do that now, because these would invariably stir up some unnecessary controversy. Well, I'll give one that is perhaps not so controversial: Many women did not express any desire to vote and considered suffragettes as too radical. The preferences of these women doesn't tell you anything about whether women should be allowed to vote or not, though. The status quo can be changed at any time if there is enough of a will to do so. Women used to be executed for adultery in Medieval Europe, and this is no longer so, because we have changed society to the better over the centuries. 3. The discussions are almost always based gross and insubstantial generalizations and an inability to describe tendencies correctly or draw adequate conclusions from small tendencies. The groups chosen are also often based on superficial differences or historical accidents.