 How biologically different are men and women? In 2017, Google engineer James D'Amour sparked a controversy for writing a leaked memo, arguing that women were underrepresented in tech because of innate differences, not bias or sexism. D'Amour was fired by Google and widely attacked in the media. Deborah So, a PhD psychologist and journalist, came to his defense. No, the Google manifesto isn't sexist or anti-diversity, she wrote. It's science. Well, if you look, there are a number of different areas of research that support the idea that gender and gender typical interests are innate. One body of research pertains to girls with a genetic condition called congenital adrenal hyperplasia. These girls are exposed to higher than usual levels of testosterone in the womb. And when they're born, they gravitate toward male typical toys like dumb trucks and stuff. Yeah, trucks and as opposed to female typical toys like dolls, even though their parents give them more praise for playing for female typical ones. I understand why people found what I had to say so threatening because this can be used to hold women back and to say women are not as competent and women should only be relegated to staying in the home and making babies and that we're not good at math and things like that. But I think it's important to have a more nuanced conversation and to say we could acknowledge that there are on average biological sex differences in the brain. Gender is not a social construct. That's not a justification for sexism. So who's the author of the new book, The End of Gender, Debunking the Myths About Sex and Identity in Our Society, worries about the growing denial of science she sees on the left. At the top of the list of myths is the idea that sexual identity exists on a spectrum. Sex is defined by gametes, which are mature reproductive cells. So that's either sperm or eggs. There are no intermediate gametes. So as a result, sex is binary. And from there, we can also, I mean, there's also the argument that gender is supposed to be a spectrum, which it also is not. And I talk about that in the book because, again, gender for 99% of us is the same as our biological sex. Sexual orientation is also biological, so argues. In fact, she reminds her readers that once upon a time, born in this way, was a motto of the gay rights movement. I think that did help gay people achieve equal rights. If sexual orientation is biological, people are much more accepting of gay people. So the thing is, if they're saying that sexual orientation now is a choice, which some people do say, then why, how is that not an argument in favor of conversion therapy to say that someone who is gay should seek to change that? And I do not, I do not support conversion therapy for sexual orientation whatsoever. So also worries about the consequences of allowing prepubescent children to undergo surgery and take hormones to change their gender. Research shows that the majority of children who say they feel more like the opposite sex will grow up to be gay, not transgender, she stresses. I'm totally on board with letting kids play with whatever toys they want, dressing however they want. I do believe that adults should be allowed to transition. Adults have the cognitive capacity to make those kinds of decisions, and it's your body, so that's your business. But for children, they do not. They do not have the mental capacity to make life-altering decisions. So who calls herself a liberal, worries that left-wing social justice warriors are distorting scientific findings to fit their political views. So the scientific method is created for the purpose of getting as close to the truth as possible. And by doing so, if you design your study properly, you will be removing any confounding variables. And as a scientist, you should be open to whatever it is you find, whether it confirms your beliefs and hypotheses or not, if it's potentially controversial or otherwise. But what we're seeing now is scientific disciplines have been infected with activist thinking, and some scientists will determine ahead of time what the outcome should be of a particular study. And it's really sad to see because I think science now is just as harmful regardless of what side it's coming from.