This statement: The core of my argument is that other factors have been shown to dominate underrepresentation for some time...
Directly contradicts this one: The evidence is flimsy, the mathematical framework naive, the conceptual underpinnings insufficiently examined, the data is simply not in.
You can't have it both ways. Either intellectual inferiority of some groups is a possibility (i.e., "the data is simply not in"), or else it has been accurately measured and shown not to be the case. Pick one.
Even if those supposed group differences withstood criticism at the level of rigor exceeding that accorded to physics or mathematics, it still would be ethically irresponsible to make it publicly and commonly known, or the focus of so much discussion.
It would be ethically irresponsible to make true facts public? Um, ok.
Have you considered the possibility that you don't actually object to the data/methodology, but rather you are seeking justification to reject conclusions that contradict your moral values?
I am totally confused by your misunderstanding. It is possible there are intrinsic differences, and anyone insisting that this has been shown through appeals to science is being insufficiently rigorous, and scientifically irresponsible.
Where did you get the idea that I was saying it was impossible?
"What is not surrounded by uncertainty cannot be the truth. - Richard Feynman."
Appeals to a supposed scientific justification of the inferiority of women in mathematics are extremely weak, and certainly damaging if untrue. The supposed scientific proof is thus pseudo-science - thinly veiled politics. I'm not going to spell it out again.
Directly contradicts this one: The evidence is flimsy, the mathematical framework naive, the conceptual underpinnings insufficiently examined, the data is simply not in.
You can't have it both ways. Either intellectual inferiority of some groups is a possibility (i.e., "the data is simply not in"), or else it has been accurately measured and shown not to be the case. Pick one.
Even if those supposed group differences withstood criticism at the level of rigor exceeding that accorded to physics or mathematics, it still would be ethically irresponsible to make it publicly and commonly known, or the focus of so much discussion.
It would be ethically irresponsible to make true facts public? Um, ok.
Have you considered the possibility that you don't actually object to the data/methodology, but rather you are seeking justification to reject conclusions that contradict your moral values?