Is there anything we could point about women? Nothing as terrible as being violent as far as I know, but what about other things? I agree with your premise but I believe it follows we must speak clearly in all cases.
Women are a protected group, so people have biases that prevent them from seeing the reality when it comes to this topic. As evolved beings made to maximize fitness, there were a lot of strategies that worked for women and shaped their psychology that noone dare point out. Also anyone coming too close to the truth will quickly get banned.
Women tend to be bad at salary negotiation, and less likely to change jobs. Middle aged women being taken advantage of in the corporate world is tragic.
This 'men are violent, therefore women must also be bad in some way' rhetoric makes no sense. There's no purpose for it other than assuaging sore feelings.
Women are bad at higher level math in the same way men are violent. Not all are, but its a trend.
However you aren't allowed to say that for one group, but you are allowed for the other. So this has nothing to do about statistical accuracy, its just political pressure from one side.
It's nothing to do with political pressure and more to do with ill-formed comparisons.
You can't just substitute in random groups for another. In order to make a statement you need to know what you're talking about. And it seems like the HN crowd that so desperately wants to say blacks are more violent than whites, these people have no clue what they're talking about. If you go and look at history you'll quickly see how that statement is just ill-formed.
A woman walking alone at night who encounters a stranger does not care what generative process led to a group disparity, she cares whether she is likely to be in danger. It is politically palatable in polite society for her to be afraid of an unknown man on the basis of his sex. But it is not acceptable for her to even consider that a statistical disparity may exist on the basis of race, or take precautions on that basis, unless it is in the context of condemning society as solely responsible for creating that disparity.
A statement of empirical observation cannot be "ill-formed" unless you have appointed yourself ultimate arbiter over why a person might care.
I didn't say they must be bad. I asked if we could make any group-based observation at all.
Also, your implied statement of "women, on average, have no traits that are unhelpful to the flourishing of human civilization", strikes me as terribly naive.
You should look up the definition of the word "imply" if you're confused about it. Arguments have implications. Disagree with that rather than lazily claiming I'm misquoting you when I didn't quote you.
Then I would agree with you that women don't have those traits just because men do. But they do have them. We're all human. I wasn't trying to argue the former. Your original response to my comment was disrespectful and uncharitable which is why I responded in kind, despite that generally being an inferior strategy.
