More bad logic yields more bad- but PC- "science."

Now comes supposedly "convincing" and "radical" proof that there is no such thing as a male or female brain.

Except that there is (at least on the theoretical level) if one looks at large numbers of them instead of at individual brains.

It's the very same flawed logic which supposedly "proved" a while back that there is no such thing as race, because what we call "race" is merely a grouping of characteristics which can exist independently. Few men, it seems, have those cerebral characteristics which supposedly define a "male" brain in a pure form, and few women have "pure" female brains. Most of us on average fall in between when all of those characteristics are examined, with some "male" characteristics and some "female" ones. It's only when large numbers of men and large numbers of women are compared that gender differences as such emerge.

Which is to say not that those differences don't exist (at least in the aggregate) but rather that the matter is more complicated than we had thought, that the "male" and "female" brains are actually descriptions of tendencies rather than of absolute and Platonically defining charactristics, and most of us actual people are combinations of the two.

Which, while interesting, is not the same thing at all. But hey. When it comes to establishing that there are no real differences between anybody and anybody else,  it's the narrative that matters, not the truth. After all, what use is "science" if it doesn't serve the Leftist agenda?

HT: Drudge