Fair enough. At the same time, recognize that _refugee_ hasn't talked to me in three days because I dared to support the notion that maybe men and women are different in ways other than "men are evil, women aren't."

And I've had this argument, over and over again, where some attempt is made to divine a reason for inequality other than "men are evil" and the consensus opinion remains "it is taboo to discuss the idea that men aren't evil." Which is what you're doing - you're arguing that it's inappropriate to explore the prevalence of men in history to explain the prevalence of men in history. You're arguing, in effect, that you'd humor the argument if only he'd made a completely different argument.

This is the argument that was made. This is the argument being discussed. Instead of the default "women are better and different" or "men are worse and different" the discussion is "how are men different?" and a hypothesis was put forth. Reject that hypothesis if you want, but don't rejected on the basis that it isn't the hypothesis you wish to discuss.