From: zeborah@gmail.com   
      
   Gerry Quinn  wrote:   
      
   > Another point occurs to me.  Suppose it happened to be the case - It is   
   > hardly biologicaly *impossible* after all, however insanely unlikely   
   > some people think it is - that women, on average, are less likely to   
   > excel at theoretical physics than men, even if social support is   
   > identical.   
      
   Where is social support identical?   
      
   >Leave aside whether this might be due to IQ variance or to   
   > some other cause.   
   >   
   > Would this mean that men were more intelligent than women, or just   
   > better at physics?   
   >   
   > If another intellectual sphere were pointed to in which women did better   
   > on average, for innate reasons, would Catja be indignant at the implied   
   > sexism of suggesting such a thing?   
      
   I would be.  Well, 'indignant' isn't quite the word in either case, but   
   my feelings would be pretty much the same in both cases.   
      
   Zeborah   
   --   
   Gravity is no joke.   
   http://www.geocities.com/zeborahnz/   
   rasfc FAQ:  http://www.lshelby.com/rasfcFAQ.html   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)