Huh? Now it's my turn to say, I don't even understand your point.
Her citation from 1932 is "IQ Percentage By Gender" and your citation from 2008 (that I think you mean to say supports the 1932 numbers) is "Gender Similarities For Math Performance". Moreover, your citation is behind a paywall so that we cannot see any numbers at all. You are not even comparing apples to oranges, you are comparing apples to some unidentified mass in a bag that we have no way of judging beyond the fact that the bag is labeled "oranges".
And no, I didn't just point out that she is a one-issue writer. Please re-read my post, instead of "speculating" about my ideologies which you know nothing about.
My citation shows women have less variance in intellect than men (but very similar mean). Sorry for the paywall, but unfortunately that is where academic research lives.
As for your post, my mistake. I missed the "she is a one issue writer, therefore mysoginist" bit probably because I assumed your post had some sort of logic to it.
You do know that when you quote a post, you have to quote something the poster actually said, right? Where did I say "she is a one issue writer, therefore a mysoginist"?
Her citation from 1932 is "IQ Percentage By Gender" and your citation from 2008 (that I think you mean to say supports the 1932 numbers) is "Gender Similarities For Math Performance". Moreover, your citation is behind a paywall so that we cannot see any numbers at all. You are not even comparing apples to oranges, you are comparing apples to some unidentified mass in a bag that we have no way of judging beyond the fact that the bag is labeled "oranges".
And no, I didn't just point out that she is a one-issue writer. Please re-read my post, instead of "speculating" about my ideologies which you know nothing about.