You know, every single person on the internet that I've seen argue that the science is solid in the Google memo point to this article in The Globe and Mail. It'

You know, every single person on the internet that I've seen argue that the science is solid in the Google memo point to this article in The Globe and Mail. It's bizarre. I've tried to toe the line and not get into the argument as much as I can because, as evidenced by the previous HN thread [1], it's just two sides yelling past each. Some are citing scientific papers stating they are correct (which a single paper does not make), others are arguing based on remembering other scientific papers and virtually no one seems to be an expert but are all commenting as such. What I would like to point out is the article in question isn't very well sourced. It points to "four - academic studies" [2] [3] [4] [5] but none of those are actual studies; they're all replies to a single study (Sex beyond the genitalia: The human brain mosaic [6]) and none include a methodology to how they came to their reply conclusion as the full text barely contains anything additional to the extract. Now I'm not writing them off as wrong but those are being misrepresented as studies without having the proper information a study or research paper would require. Unless it's available elsewhere? It's unclear at least to me and appears, again to me, as very misleading. Ultimately there is a boat load of research out there. Some of it is going to support the Google memo writing. Some of it will not. Some of it can be used to represent both sides of the argument. I think a better article, should one exist, should be used to defect your viewpoint should you side with the Google memo. Much of science requires a consensus and rock solid testing methodologies and I'm just not seeing that sourced in the article. Again, I am not an expert but this is my impression from this article. Feel free to make any corrections to my statement :) [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14952787 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14952787 [2] http://www.pnas.org/content/113/14/E1968.extract http://www.pnas.org/content/113/14/E1968.extract [3] http://www.pnas.org/content/113/14/E1971.extract http://www.pnas.org/content/113/14/E1971.extract [4] http://www.pnas.org/content/113/14/E1966.extract http://www.pnas.org/content/113/14/E1966.extract [5] http://www.pnas.org/content/113/14/E1965.full.pdf http://www.pnas.org/content/113/14/E1965.full.pdf [6] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4687544/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4687544/