If you make a study that finds that plants don't need water to grow your study is wrong. It's like that here, this isn't one of those things that needs extra ev

If you make a study that finds that plants don't need water to grow your study is wrong. It's like that here, this isn't one of those things that needs extra evidence or debate. > This is anti-intellectualism. And what epithet would you give to those who pretend there is no difference? > Or maybe the differences are very social and contextual This is certainly an interesting idea (and one I've heard before). But you have to prove it. You can't just declare "I found no differences, therefor it must be a social difference". The standard of evidence to declare this is very high, it requires actual proof not just a well reasoned argument. And you will have to somehow explain all the evidence against this - for example in nordic countries they found that if they give the household enough money the wife prefers to stop working, and stay home. This went against their idea that men and women should be paid the same, and supported identically, because then women will want to work. Instead they found women actually preferred to be home, and they only wanted to work if they had to (i.e. not enough money). Men however had the opposite result. So their goal of equal employment would require them to reduce support. I'm not sure what the government chose to do. > are simply too fine-grained to show up. Then your study is faulty and you should declare "invalid study", not "valid study we found nothing".