The first sign of crankery, by the way, is when you maintain the conclusion, and just change your arguments, after your initial “proofs” are proven wrong. The idea that women are inherently worse than men at math has been a mainstay of pseudo-science evo psych crankery for a long time now, but now that it appears that it was, as non-choads have said for a long time, a matter of social conditioning and not inherent ability, we can’t expect them to back off the predetermined conclusion, which is that women are inferior in some significant way that explains why we deserve to make less money and have less power. Any guesses on what women’s next natural inferiority is going to be? The ability to manage game controllers?
My favorite theory, and I’m amused at how few evo psych choads are willing to engage this one, is that men’s major superiority over women throughout history has been brute strength and swiftness with the back of the hand. Really, do you need to be better at calculus to subdue another population? I guess, now that violence is less admirable a trait than it was throughout most of human history, we have to change the arguments around the predetermined conclusion. Civilization: how the patriarchy turns from smack-a-bitch to crank arguments. I guess that’s progress.