There's also an equal or bigger amount of science proving that gender "interests" are driven in a large part by cultural background. As I linked elsewhere, Communist Russia used to have a huge participation of women in "STEM" fields, while Europe and the US were still moving from single-income families to the current standard of working professional women.

There's nothing we can do to fix the - alleged - biological differences between men and women. There's a lot we can do to fix the cultural factors leading to gender inequality. So why not work on the stuff we can work on rather than assuming "awwww, why bother, if there's some chance it might be biological?"

Look at the Stanford link.

> There was too much data pointing to the biological basis of sex-based cognitive differences to ignore, Halpern says. For one thing, the animal-research findings resonated with sex-based differences ascribed to people. These findings continue to accrue. In a study of 34 rhesus monkeys, for example, males strongly preferred toys with wheels over plush toys, whereas females found plush toys likable. It would be tough to argue that the monkeys’ parents bought them sex-typed toys or that simian society encourages its male offspring to play more with trucks. A much more recent study established that boys and girls 9 to 17 months old — an age when children show few if any signs of recognizing either their own or other children’s sex — nonetheless show marked differences in their preference for stereotypically male versus stereotypically female toys.

If I were to attribute malice, I'd say that you are actively avoiding the point I've been making to keep pushing your narrative.

The text you quote just says that some behavior might be driven by biological differences. Cool, nobody is arguing that. So what's the point you are trying to make?

The point I'm trying to make is that there's enough evidence that culture plays a major role in behavior and so we should maybe try to make the playing field fairer, so that if there are any biological traits dictating this or that behavior, they can be allowed. You know, work on what we know before we focus on what might be. It's pretty simple, really.

> The text you quote just says that some behavior might be driven by biological differences. Cool, nobody is arguing that.

This is entirely what the outrage for Damore was about. Entirely.

Notice the keywords are "some" and "might". Damore makes a lot of very lofty, all-encompassing claims.