>What if it turned out that the "urge to take things apart and learn how they worked", at some very low level, was more of a male thing? Stop right here. You'r

>What if it turned out that the "urge to take things apart and learn how they worked", at some very low level, was more of a male thing? Stop right here. You're already describing a high-level skill, an extremely high-level skill. What does grandparent have to say about this? >high-level cognitive skills represent years of practice so even if you did find, say, a difference in the size of a brain region you would still want to study whether that's innate or simply reflecting that people who do something a lot develop capacity for it So we see that the very question you are asking is precisely what grandparent is calling out as impossible to get some kind of direct access to in the first place. Why? >because the brain is famously plastic The brain, by the definition of its form, doesn't leave an audit trail, so by definition, _we cannot ask the kinds of questions you want to ask_, questions that, obviously, many many people _want_ to ask, _unless_ we somehow develop a way to backtrack the brain's _inline mutation_, which doesn't look likely. But ethical and political discourse is not designed to _wait_ until we have all the information to even make answering the questions they pose possible, questions which make _presumptions_ in the _absence of knowledge_, presumptions they can't actually cash the check for. Science has _bounds_; ethico-political discourse does not. They are not composable types. You ask, "Why would that be so bad? " But we can't even begin to access the _conditions_ for even getting the presumption to be true, so what other value is there left for a question which is own shaky epistemological ground? What is the value of _supposing_ that it is true?