``Differences in biology'' are consistently cited as justification for sexist beliefs. (An example of a sexist belief is, ``women are better suited to careers r

``Differences in biology'' are consistently cited as justification for sexist beliefs. (An example of a sexist belief is, ``women are better suited to careers requiring nurturing and communication over logic and leadership.'') You are correct that this article did not imply an ordering in its findings, but given that men dominate higher prestige social and professional positions globally, people are constantly searching for justifications of this that seem ``fair'' to them: biology. It is primarily men who are presidents and scientists and CEOs and leaders of families and religions. Why? Because on average, they're just better at it. Because biology. Or so they say. When small differences are desperately sought out, and vast similarities are ignored, all to justify what is arguably an inequitable situation, I'm wary. Scientific sexism and scientific racism are not new. The findings of the scientific process are not immune from the bigotries of its practitioners and the era in which they live. Science is a process, not an outcome.