Point 0 does not make any sense. Not only does it provide a biased, one data point argument, but also includes a number of logical flaws (e.g. genes do not equal biology; genetic pre-disposition cannot be derived from areas of studies & degrees of family; normal distribution is not the only distribution in the world; even so 68% is still greater than 32%; the multiple studies link is far less than convincing and presents false premises, e.g. “4. There are sex differences in interests, but they’re not biologically determined.” with no evidence or even any reference to justify that claim; etc).
Adding to that the subtle fact that perception and reality are two very different things
The world presented to us by our perceptions is nothing like reality
and that all negative reactions to the Manifesto are in fact confirming that by
driving truth to extinction
it further makes perfect sense why your Point o arguments may sound convincing to you and many other people when in fact have no connection to factual reality (of course, excluding the likely valid personal details).
Did I also mention that biologically DNA variants in the neuron cells of the brain may make different people perceive the same exact information very differently?
If so, how can firing of a person for expressing some kind of a “controversial” (based on whose neurons?) point view be justified?
Regardless, it was a great read, especially everything else. Particularly, showing courage to disagree with a person who for some reason has turned into a “manifesto celebrity” is admirable:
I think that kind of mentality is the root of the problem. Ostracizing people for expressing their opinions creates isolation — the opposite of inclusion.
More importantly though is that you nail the actual problem.
