This paper doesn't sit right with me. To establish rigid, biological definitions of some of the most debated terms is fine of course, as long as it makes your own research and writing clearer. What's weird is expecting others to have used the same definition in their writing. To use the word "bias" to describe that discrepancy is not really doing justice to other viewpoints and it seems like the author has failed to live up to his own ideals:

> The dialectic can remain healthy as long as multiple viewpoints are allowed and ideas are evaluated on their own merits.

The main point of the paper is to discuss what the author describes as a feminist bias in academic psychology, which he says systematically distorts certain domains of research.

The paper then attacks this "bias" from multiple angles, which makes the paper quite hard to follow. The first angle is that feminism fundamentally misunderstands the nature of sex:

> The flaws of the sex-gender distinction have led some feminist > scholars to adopt the hybrid term “sex/gender” (sometimes > “gender/sex”) as a way to recognize that biological and social > factors are inseparable [...] Unfortunately, this terminological > fusion may end up deepening the conceptual confusion. [...] On this > view, the “sex binary” is a socially constructed fiction; the old > idea that there are two sexes is simplistic and inaccurate, and does > not stand up to sophisticated analysis [...] This argument can be > seductive but has one problem—it fundamentally misunderstands the > nature of sex.

He goes on to explain why "the biological definition of sex is not just one option among many equally valid alternatives", but in fact the only valid definition. "The sex binary, then, is not a fiction but a basic biological fact".

Here's the definition from the paper:

"From a biological standpoint, what distinguishes the males and females of a species is the size of their gametes: males produce small gametes (e.g., sperm), females produce large gametes."

Stating this definition as a fact is very strange. Clearly we used these terms long before this definition existed, for example.

The section that reviews introductory textbooks is simply confusing. It states that this "quick survey illustrates many of the trends I discussed earlier" and complains that some of them are completely silent on the issue of sex differences, but also acknowledges that there "there is quite a bit of variation in coverage, and a few outliers that deviate from the general". To summarize: out of 14 textbooks that the author looked at, some didn't mention the issue at all, some did but not enough, but some did. I don't find this to be a clear illustration of the author's points.

The review of journal papers is equally confusing. 19 papers were selected based on publication year, journal, title and abstract. In the authors words, the selected papers "reveals a fair amount of theoretical diversity, but also a pervasive tendency to emphasize socialization over biology and downplay robust empirical findings as “stereotypes”. The methodology is extremely unclear. If I got it right, 19 papers where chosen by the author - some where emphasizing socializing over biology, and some took an "explicitly evolutionary approach". Again, not a very convincing way to demonstrate bias - except perhaps in your own selection.

It goes on. I'd like to write more but I think these issues speak for themselves.