“Biology must lay down advantages and disadvantages for the different genders because that is how the system works.”

is wrong.

In biology, just the fact that there are sexes is the advantage for organisms that reproduce sexually. Sexual reproduction mixes genes better than asexual reproduction, significantly improving the speed of selection fitness. Whether or not those sexes are better/worse at doing certain things has no universal bearing on sexual reproduction at all.

Come to think of it, this is all moot, as all sexually reproductive organisms are outnumbered millions of times over by asexually reproducing bacteria; the most successful life forms on the planet. So, you know, I will now return you to your regular programming: The “How to blow up Evil Sexist Capitalistic Chemical Plants and Feel Good About It” Half Hour with Jane Doe.

The most important thing is that molecules weren’t oppressed. It doesn’t matter if the chemical plant blows up and dozens were killed. Anyway, most of them would be straight white males and the plant would be owned by evil capitalists…..

My counter-argument is that people who do not actually believe in science have no busisness being taken seriously when they write about science.

It is true that in my sixth-form there was only one girl among the eight of us doing A-level Chemistry. A different girl was among the twelve or so doing Physics, but the two doing Further Maths were equally split gender-wise. Why? No idea, but the fact that I chose Maths, Physics and Chemistry A-Levels had nothing to do with my gender and everything to do with what grades I expected to get and would they be good enough for a university place.

Right. I misread that at first. Tell you what, if it was me, I’d've told them to shove it. I don’t know the circumstances of the person who was running it though, so I can’t pass judgement.

As for the Humanities, I hope these are the odd ones out. I know a few people who worked in various philosophy and language departments and they didn’t carry on like that.

Makes me wonder how much of this corner of academia works like a scam; people who have figured out a way of earning a comfortable living without actually contributing anything of value, and that’s why they fear public exposure. It’s why they write in such an opaque sryle; should they actually succeed in communicating their ideas it will be all-too-apparent the ideas are nonsense. Or is that Non/sense?

Or many it’s just another application of Sturgeon’s Law? The dross needs to exist so that the 10% of Humanities research that actually produce important insights can happen?

To demonstrate this, you should be able to find stats on the number of citations any given paper has received. Flawed as it is, it’s about the only metric we have of quantifying the impact of a paper in the academic world. At least you can in the Sciences, I don’t know about the Humanities.

That people have tried to shut down the Twitter account is concerning. I mean, if publishing papers is for communicating your ideas, you should welcome their inclusion in the theatre of public discourse.

What I don’t really know is whether is sort of thing is fringe stuff that’s best being ignored, or whether it represents widespread thinking in some parts of academia, in which case the Humanities have a problem. Not being part of academia I can’t answer that question.

“This position is not being advocated anywhere in the philosophy of science…”

Gee, I wonder why…

“In order to establish the claim that certain values found in the theories of the physical sciences are gendered, an alternative epistemological framework is needed.”

Class, today we’re going to construct a staw-man. Ahem, sorry, I mean straw-person. Remember kids, if the world doesn’t fit into your particular ideology, just re-define it until it does!

“If you’re being generous, you could consider this a case of an academic who’s gone so deep into theory they’ve lost the ability to recognise where their theory doesn”t apply…”

I’d argue this is more your garden variety “I haven’t bothered to familiarise myself with my opponent’s point of view; because if I had, I’d know everything I’ve just been saying doesn’t apply.”