So I read that, and it's not so much "serious questions about validity" as "overall weak agreement disguised as rebuttal". The main takeaway in the form of disagreement is that social science findings are mostly untrustworthy/not usable?

The point I took away was that this is not settled science at all and he was cherry picking results in order to buttress a conclusion which he'd already made, but also that the differences between men and women on average simply are not large enough to explain the disparities in tech, not even close. There are many other rebuttals which focus on other points, for example if the reason for disparities in women and men in tech is biological, why was the balance significantly altered within a few decades from the 70s to now?

> The main takeaway in the form of disagreement is that social science findings are mostly untrustworthy/not usable?

No, I think they're fine as long as they're consistent with the idea that sexism and oppression are the only relevant factors.

Otherwise, better keep that science to yourself.

Please don't post ideological snark to HN, regardless of what your underlying point is. It poisons discussion and we can all use less poison right now.

> You should also note there are serious questions about its validity - this is not just a matter of tone or style.

Then why don't you summarize the article's points so people are free to give a rebuttal