Acknowledging the average differences between the sexes is neither colonialism nor sexism. But this on itself only tells you that there are some physical differences in size and muscular weight, and a couple months of the reproductive cycle where women will be physically impaired because of advanced pregnancy; it doesn't account for anything more.
Now, assuming that those minimum physical differences have an impact on social behaviour is sexist, because it fails to recognize the social reinforcement mechanisms that influence those decisions, from the structural separation of professional disciplines (i.e. the hard vs soft sciences divide, which dissipates when using multidisciplinary teams) to the social inertia of lower salaries of caretaking professions traditionally assigned to women.
BTW, assuming that these observations are produced from irrational anti-scientifism is the kind of blind spot of traditionalists that I was referring above.
People can believe both that the physical differences between sexes imply some social/psychological/cognitive differences, and that society has unfairly categorized people according to their sex.
One can be anti-sexist and believe in sex differences writ large at the same time.
It seems more sexist to assume that differences mean one sex is better or worse. Let's let the whole richness of reality come forward, and embrace it for what it is.
You’re positing that the physical differences between men and women are materially inconsequential, have no impact on social behavior, and somehow cease before impacting the brain — and you deign to accuse everyone else of “anti-scientifism”?
You’re welcome to the opinion, but denying obvious, observable, verifiable reality because it fails to fit your dogmatic model of the world is not science; co-opting science and denying biological reality in service of your activism is far closer to both colonialism and sexism than any of the views you’re arguing against.
You accuse me of an assertion I have not made, while ignoring the assertion I have made, and go on name-calling as your only ad-hominem argument. It's clear who's having an irrational behaviour here. Good night.
What about the psychometric differences? Measuring them is not as straight forward as measuring height or weight. But they can be measured nonetheless, and they have predictive power.
It can be argued that the cause of those differences are social, instead of biological. But I'll note that
1. mental is rooted in physical too (e.g. hormones)
2. the sex differences can be seen cross-culturally
Now, assuming that those minimum physical differences have an impact on social behaviour is sexist, because it fails to recognize the social reinforcement mechanisms that influence those decisions, from the structural separation of professional disciplines (i.e. the hard vs soft sciences divide, which dissipates when using multidisciplinary teams) to the social inertia of lower salaries of caretaking professions traditionally assigned to women.
BTW, assuming that these observations are produced from irrational anti-scientifism is the kind of blind spot of traditionalists that I was referring above.