1/I don't think it's a good look for an organization like the APA to get this far ahead of the evidence just to make a point many progressives would LIKE to be true, but which is very much up fir debate. There are what appears to be SOME robust m/f diffs.
apa.org/monitor/2019/0…
apa.org/monitor/2019/0…
2/ This document isn't nearly as bad as the disastrous recent AAP guidelines on gender dysphoria, but same general flavor: Evidence for political/values claims getting overstated in what should be a just-the-facts-ma'am consensus document.
Of course
Of course
3/ "facts" is tricky! Nothing is apolitical. But when it comes to specific, fairly strong scientific claims, it's often pretty apparent that there either is or isn't sufficient evidence to justify those claims. Not a good sign when shaky claims make it into these publications.
"Neglected Tradeoffs in Social Justice Research" by @Chrismartin76, who is worth following, is an excellent rundown of the potential unintended consequences of prematurely accepting certain ideas because they seem social-justicey.
researchgate.net/profile/Chris_…
researchgate.net/profile/Chris_…
