> Whether one is allowed to pose some particular questions is a political topic though!

"This is *NOT REMOTELY* a controversial opinion except on Weird Far Left Twitter 2017" doesn't sound like a question.

curious what you mean. i dont actually take any side on the original question. i dont really know enough to have an informed opinion - and im a bit skeptical one could prove anything given the confounding variables

but the idea that you cant even a-politically pose a question about biology - i dont really get the logic there. seems antiscientific

I was just speaking generally, I also don't have a side there. But for clarity, what I meant is that templates to the tune of "[subset of people with X characteristic] are more / less prone to [Y characteristic]" can construct blatantly false sentences, and also sentences that, irrespective of whether they are true (or that they are falsifiable at all, as you add), have a heavy political penalty.

I also don't think that's bad - you can say blatantly racist things with that template, and I'm ok with those things not allowed to be said in lots of contexts.

Issue is when MAGA people (Like Blow) say "women are biologically inclined towards X", it doesn't come from a place of geniune scientific curiosity, but rather a way to advance their misogynistic agenda. There is nothing you could ever say that would change their "opinion" on the matter.

Truth is, programming was women-dominated in its inception, but was taken over by men when programming the computer became more prestigious. Whatever biological factors at play here, they're completely overridden by sociological factors.