>>17
You're attacking
>>13 for alleged intellectual dishonesty but letting
>>11's slide and committing your own.
>>9's claim was that without gender policing, we'd have more scientists (which is true), which
>>11 ``attacked'' by saying that even without gender policing, there would still be differences between the sexes.
It is
>>11 who cast his own comment as a universal claim, because if it wasn't, it wouldn't be relevant to
>>9's original comment. In actual fact, of course, it was a deliberate red herring.
You're disregarding that because you want to agree with his thesis and aren't really interested in an intellectually honest discussion; that's also why you're trying to derail it with your Wikipedia appeal to fallacy.