5 ms·

I agree with this. In addition, Larry Cahill puts up some ridiculous strawmen: "But also stay away from the ideologues on the other side, who unfortunately are

I agree with this. In addition, Larry Cahill puts up some ridiculous strawmen: "But also stay away from the ideologues on the other side, who unfortunately are given a voice by editors at places like the New York Times, who know nothing about the issue except that they’re afraid of appearing to be on the wrong side of it.", "It’s just that I’ve been drawn into this now by having to deal with this small but ridiculous vocal group of ideologues, and I feel an obligation to not let them get away with utterly misrepresenting or even vilifying my science." He is misrepresenting the Feminist's position just as much as he is claiming that they are misrepresenting science. Feminism has become the right's new Bogeyman.

Dirlewanger 8y ago
If you read the article, you'd see a linked NYT article whose authors clearly have no interest in further discussing potential physiological differences between the sex's brains.
int_19h 8y ago
Cahill does not mention feminism or feminists at any point, either in the Medium article, or in his review that it links to. You can certainly choose to interpret "ideologues" in this broad way, but that is a very uncharitable (for feminism) reading.
- bjourne 8y ago
  "You might think _they’d_ be protesting outside my door. They are not. I teach a class here called Sex Differences in the Brain. It has a max of 60 people, and it’s enrolled about to the max. My students come out of the class going, “Wow, I had no idea about this stuff!” I point out to them that there are people on this campus in the Gender Studies Department who use books by one of these ideologues and literally have classes basically saying that what I’m saying is wrong." It is blatantly obvious what he means by "ideologues".
  - 0815test 8y ago
    Well, it seems clear that what he has a problem with is not "feminists" but people who actually promote junk science, either in parts of academia or on the media. It's the difference between saying "conservatives are anti-science" and stating the same thing about creationists or climate-change denialists.
    - bjourne 8y ago
      We all have a problem with people promoting junk science! I guess what we differ on, is whether we believe such people are common in academia.

Dirlewanger 8y ago

If you read the article, you'd see a linked NYT article whose authors clearly have no interest in further discussing potential physiological differences between the sex's brains.

int_19h 8y ago

Cahill does not mention feminism or feminists at any point, either in the Medium article, or in his review that it links to. You can certainly choose to interpret "ideologues" in this broad way, but that is a very uncharitable (for feminism) reading.

bjourne 8y ago
"You might think _they’d_ be protesting outside my door. They are not. I teach a class here called Sex Differences in the Brain. It has a max of 60 people, and it’s enrolled about to the max. My students come out of the class going, “Wow, I had no idea about this stuff!” I point out to them that there are people on this campus in the Gender Studies Department who use books by one of these ideologues and literally have classes basically saying that what I’m saying is wrong." It is blatantly obvious what he means by "ideologues".
- 0815test 8y ago
  Well, it seems clear that what he has a problem with is not "feminists" but people who actually promote junk science, either in parts of academia or on the media. It's the difference between saying "conservatives are anti-science" and stating the same thing about creationists or climate-change denialists.
  - bjourne 8y ago
    We all have a problem with people promoting junk science! I guess what we differ on, is whether we believe such people are common in academia.