I don't think I ever claimed that there weren't biological differences. I just pointed out a cultural point. Which also had an effect on psychology. Obviously.

In my field, being a "senior whatever" means that you are at least a lead of a team. I guess it could be different here?

The options aren't limited to "doesn't matter at all" and "is the only thing that matters."

Yes, when a supervisory employee sends out a memo, it is viewed as representative of what the people in management might think. That's why most companies have strict rules about where and when you're allowed to distribute memos.

Knowledge and competence at what? I mean "competence" is a bit vague as a term.

Because complete objectivity in all aspect of personal and political life are necessary for jury service? Gosh! And here I was thinking that it was only necessary that the jury put their prejudices aside during the trial! No wonder it takes so much time to pick jurors!

Personally, I don't much care what my co-workers think in their secret hearts, so long as they behave themselves. I'm willing to accept the form of human decency and leave whether a co-worker actually is good between them and their god.

I mean, do you know how journalism works? I assume Watergate was a sham because Deepthroat wasn't identified until decades later?

Anecdotal example that explains one of the many reason women are underrepresented in engineering etc:

Convicted him? No. Since he's not, you know, on trial or anything. What we've done is used our reason to come to the conclusion based on the evidence before us. Personally, the combination of 14 sources and his lawyer's obvious attempt to avoid a flat out denial, make me pretty certain it's accurate.

Talking food is horrifying. Not even close to cute.

Ever since I saw Young Sherlock Holmes, I've had a horror of talking food. I don't want my food to be sentient.

My friend had an Internet match where, after two pleasant dates, the guy started texting dick pics. And then got huffy when she objected. Basically, an "I didn't realize I was having lunch with the queen!" response. We were so confused. Who is raising these men?

To go boldly where no man has gone before!

Apparently none of the kids wore seatbelts. Which, in this day in age, boggles my mind. Plus, who wants to be in a van with five unrestrained kids anyway?

"Chicks and horses…"

I have read that camera flashes and intense photo-lighting can make things more transparent. So it might have looked fine in a different room. Though you'd think they'd know to check.

Well I am glad that they didn't try to make Garner and McQueen do like, cockney accents or something. That's a mercy!

Then I don't know, except maybe he was worried about the plane hitting a boat or troops and wanted to land somewhere empty. At least, as a pilot, he was going to be held by the pretty humane Luftwaffe, I guess.

So the study of history should be accurate and drama can use history but accuracy doesn't matter? Or only matters to the extent that we think it is necessary to preserve "the spirit" of history? How does that rebut the article writer?