Well, at least here in America, from a very young age, we're taught about the declaration of independence, right? All men are created equal. But I think that they're especially in our modern time that we're kind of forgetting the kind of parenthetical after that, which is in the eyes of God, not necessarily equal in all ways as human beings, right? You discuss in the book the need to come to terms with biological reality, like you were just saying, that some differences in the averages between men and women are rooted in biology and are there for natural. And there seems to be this tension between this view and the belief that outcome disparities between men and women can and must be rectified. So I guess my question to maybe gently push back is if women excel in areas that men do not or vice versa. Is this always in injustice or simply a result of, again, on average, natural preferences and proclivities?

Well, that's the right question. And that becomes the empirical question that we then are taking out into the world. And again, the extreme views are unhelpful on both sides of this argument, where I think it's useful is less in how you might treat an individual. I'm very clear that even if you see differences on average or in distributions, that doesn't allow you or in any way justify discriminating on an individual basis. So to give you a personal example, the fact that my son worked in early years, I would be very angry if he's discriminated. In fact, I am very angry when he is discriminated against because he's a man, because people make assumptions about men being less nurturing or potentially even abusive. But my sister-in-law is an engineer. And I'm really angry if anyone discriminates against her because they say, well, can women really be good engineers? Do they have the right brains for it? I'm really angry because what you're doing is you're making a horrible mistake of taking differences in distributions and applying to an individual. So where is it useful? I think it's useful in a couple of ways. One is just observational and the other is more substantive. The observational way that it's useful to be aware of and track these biological differences in just the patterns that we might see play out in society. And what it means, for example, is that you won't always see exactly quality of outcome or exact equality or exact equality of shares, say, of a profession, under conditions of substantive and genuine and true equality. Everything doesn't have to be 50-50 to have true equality. You don't need androgyny to get equality. So to give a specific example, and I quote some work on this, take engineering, what percentage of engineers will be women under conditions of gender equality? It's not 50%. And the reason it's not 50% is because on average, men are more likely to be interested in things and that way of thinking than women are, right? On average. And the same is true the other way for, say, something like caring, professionals like nursing. So it's not 50%. But some work by wrong Sue and James Rounds that I quote in the book suggests that it might be, say, 25%, 30%. So they take the personality traits of men and women and map it onto the occupational structure and say, what would we expect the shares to be if people were choosing based on these observed differences in preferences and personalities and they get a number about 25, 30%. Right now it's 15%. And not very long ago, it's 3%. The trouble is that some people will say and were saying when 5% of engineers were women, they were saying, well, it's just not really women's work, is it? Women's brains don't work that way, right? They were justifying 5%.

A ludicrous statement, yeah. Right.

But on the other hand, you'll see other people that would say, let's say we get to 30%, which in some countries we have got, in some countries is leveling out now, can 30% take that still not good enough? It has to be 50. Well, does it? Does it have to be 50? Now the question is how do you know? How do you know when you've got to a point? What's that point? What's that magic number? And the answer is I don't know. But based on what we know from the differences in the overlapping personality distributions of men and women, it's a dance site more than 5%. But it's not 50%. And it's probably somewhere around 25, 30. I don't know, but all we can do is get towards that and not allow ourselves to be caught in this trap of it's either zero because women's brains don't work that way or 50% or we're still in a patriarchy. Right. That's how it's useful to think about that. And substantively, it's useful because to the extent there are these biological differences, it doesn't mean that culture matters less. It means that culture matters more because A, culture could either amplify and accentuate those differences or it could diminish them. Right? So it can take these differences on average and turn them into, back to where you were a moment ago about collective action problems about social norms, right? Why is nursing a women's profession? Well, Florence Nightingale started it in the Crimean War by saying men can't be nurses. It's taken quite a long time even to get to like 11% of nurses being men now. But using the same study that I referenced before, it should be about say 25, 30% of nurses would be men. Again, not 50%. But if we construct a normative set of equilibrium, which is that's women's work, that's men's work, we make it much harder to go into those professions. Which means that the numbers don't reflect the genuine underlying preferences. So that's why it matters because culturally the messages we send are hugely important. And we've got to find a middle ground between this is women's work and this is men's work. Right? Try telling that to Margaret Thatcher in 1979, right? That being Prime Minister was men's work. This is men's work, this is women's work. That's one extreme, which some conservators fall into the trap of, but the other extreme is saying until the day when everything's 50, 50, we're still living in a patriarchy when that's clearly not true, given that there are some differences. And most ordinary people find these statements to be completely uncontroversial. It's just in the higher reaches of the culture war where they're controversial. Yes.