From “The Dream Palace of Educational Theorists“:
There is the public school racket, in which homeowners and taxpayers fork out stupendous sums of money to feed a socialistic extravaganza in which, when its employees can spare time from administration, “professional development” sabbaticals, and fund-raising for the Democratic Party, boys are pressed to act like girls, and dosed with calming drugs if they refuse so to act; girls are encouraged to act like boys by taking up advanced science, math, and strenuous sports, which few of them have any liking or aptitude for; and boys and girls alike are indoctrinated in the dubious dogmas of “diversity” and political correctness. [emphasis mine]
Never mind that there’s no indication that there is a way girl and boys innately act–there’s no consensus in the scientific community, sir–and never mind the recent research that shows that women who were informed that the reason men outperform them in math is because of stereotyping suddenly reached performance levels equal to men. He’s done nothing to compare the levels of in-group variation (the differences among women) with out-group variation (the differences between men and women). This is important because if the in-group variation is larger than the out-group variation, then the out-group variation is not especially significant. So if there are more variations among women (or among men) than between women and men–well, that doesn’t look so good for sex differences….
And actually, there’s no reason why the italicized section of this piece should actually be in the essay. It pertains only tangentially to his larger point.