> First, a certain kind of person tries to make a deeply sexist argument and reaches for “science” to back it up. Disclaimer: I've debated racists on Twitter,

> First, a certain kind of person tries to make a deeply sexist argument and reaches for “science” to back it up. Disclaimer: I've debated racists on Twitter, with moderate success. I started by presuming that their correlational data wasn't invalid. Then I showed them this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height_and_intelligence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Height_and_intelligence while stating that I couldn't waste time talking to any of them unless they were over 6' (for men) or 5'8" (for women) because going too far below that would be beneath my eminent intelligence as a person who towers at 6'3". They magically shut up soon after this. You see, there's a difference between seeing a correlation, and acting on it. Racists want to act on correlations (oppressing nonwhites), but oddly, they wouldn't think the same about oppressing short people, even though that evidence is at least as plain-as-day. This is all besides the fact that correlational data is weak to begin with.