Maybe we're talking past each other here. I don't think the author has a problem with the science James referenced. The science behind the core issues is fine.

Maybe we're talking past each other here. I don't think the author has a problem with the science James referenced. The science behind the core issues is fine. No argument there. The author has a problem with James' interpretation of the science, and his speculation and arguments he makes based on this flawed interpretation. You've probably read http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-respond/ http://quillette.com/2017/08/07/google-memo-four-scientists-... David P Schmitt, the only one whose work was used in the memo doesn't seem agree with the memo. His third and fourth paragraphs say that any differences between sexes is small and not relevant to work going on at google. This is a common theme with the memo. The science is correct. But James goes beyond what the science says and adds incorrect arguments and statements on top. This is the problem. And it is the kind of thing that can get you labeled as sexist or whatever. As I go through the links, each is used to directly refute one of these incorrect additions to the science that James wrote. They don't refute the science, they refute James' added commentary. In 'Early androgen exposure and human gender development' there is a section titled "Which human behaviors show average sex differences?" and it is very pertinent to this topic. Lots of people have been bringing up the Androgen Exposure argument in this debate, and the second Androgen study linked was showing it is not a solved question yet. So that was also relevant. The Human health and population growth studies were used to refute James's statements that were quoted. Etc. I'll happily agree that the author shouldn't have used certain terms or phrases. That was unneeded and unprofessional.