"When he [Harvard president Lawrence Summers] started talking about innate differences in aptitude between men and women," Hopkins told The New York Times, "I just couldn't breathe because this kind of bias makes me physically ill." Had she remained in the room, she explained to The Boston Globe, "I would've either blacked out or thrown up."1
One would think the hallmark of a good researcher would be the ability to examine the facts, primary research and the underlying premises of hypotheses without losing one's lunch or collapsing. Madam Curie, for example, was nauseous for years on end, but later discovered this was due to low-level radiation poisoning; had Ms. Curie's nausea prevented her from further research we may never have had critical empirical data on the nature of radioactivity.
"A variety of data collected throughout the 1990s show that gonadal hormones...have demonstrable effects on the cognitive abilities of women and men," wrote psychologists Diane Halpern of California State University in San Bernardino and Mary LaMay of Loma Linda University in a 2000 Educational Psychology Review article. "Converging evidence from a variety of sources supports the idea that prenatal hormone levels affect patterns of cognition in sex-typical ways."
Wouldn't it be grand if we could examine these and other intriguing developments in the nature of prenatal development without knee-jerk PC sermonizing or projectile vomiting?
1. On a related yet highly extrapolated note, Michael Moore succumbs to bouts of flatulence whenever he hears 'only women should have breasts.'