> Many of those hypotheses, however, are shouted down as "racist", "sexist", or some other "ist" when they come up, and all of their possible costs are then lis

> Many of those hypotheses, however, are shouted down as "racist", "sexist", or some other "ist" when they come up, and all of their possible costs are then listed in a litany, with all possible benefits ignored. The research he alludes to isn't crazy. The policy changes he advocates for aren't crazy (although I disagree with many of them). What's nefarious is that they exist in the same document. Connecting the dots would indeed be sexist. So he doesn't, and leaves it as an exercise for the reader. Let's not pretend that "just having the conversation" is a neutral thing. It's not. He doesn't bring up these gender differences for fun..