> But you're claiming that this historic context is the sole explanation for all observable difference. I'm not claiming that, I don't know! And neither do any

> But you're claiming that this historic context is the sole explanation for all observable difference. I'm not claiming that, I don't know! And neither do any of us, at least presently. That is my point. We're effectively as far from falsifiability with my statement as yours. We don't know to what extent that systemic history exerts an effect, and to what extent it doesn't. Maybe given an equal history, women would be better! Or they'd still be worse. > My claim is that it is _possible_ that biology explains the difference in observed chess performance between men and women. Sure, it's possible. It's also possible that given an equal history where women were the advantaged gender, a women would be here arguing the same thing in the opposite direction. We can argue a million things are possible, to what end? When it's all just speculation, the argument feels more like a philosophical exercise that challenges the fitness of one subgroup more-so than it an honest engagement of a meaty topic (fairly or unfairly). That's because it seems to normalize the idea of genetic mental weakness, even with acknowledging the lack of proof. And while it doesn't speak to any one individual, it can serve to create a perception that individuals from those groups are less capable as an a priori assumption. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed, but it does make it challenging to do so, and people have their guard up for totally understandable and contextually-appropriate reasons. > And people should not have their life ruined for trying to discuss this. I agree with that.