A lengthy reply could be made to each statement in particlesforjustice.org, which would be the healthy way for an academic conversation, but I will make an exce

A lengthy reply could be made to each statement in particlesforjustice.org, which would be the healthy way for an academic conversation, but I will make an exception and just point out a few flaws. 1) The bell curve difference in variance is not rebutted, which is the central argument. It is the very first claim in the article, and the basis for all other claims. How should we interpret that the central argument is silently not mentioned by the rebuttal? 2) the Istanbul convention rebuttal misses that in modern studies on gender based violence, men report the same amount violence from partners as does women. The humanity of male victims should not up for debate and yet the here the particlesforjustice is arguing in favor of such discrimination.