To characterise this line of reasoning as having no basis in reality would be an egregious understatement. It is false at every conceivable scale of resolution.
And just what is so unquestionably false? This is:
The categories male and female exist on a spectrum, and are therefore no more than social constructs. If male and female are merely arbitrary groupings, it follows that everyone, regardless of genetics or anatomy should be free to choose to identify as male or female, or to reject sex entirely in favour of a new bespoke “gender identity”.
And where was such a statement made? In The Australian today, in an article titled, There’s no question of our biological sex. You may be amazed to find such a statement made anywhere in the Western world at the present time, but not only was this said, but was said in the middle of the paper in a joint-authored article by a man, Colin Wright, who is an evolutionary biologist at Penn State University and a woman, Emma Hilton, who is a developmental biologist at the University of Manchester. Are their careers not now in tatters or are we at the dawn of a new era of free speech?
And on the same day I also found something else: Are Women Destroying Academia? Probably. Surely that’s unsayable in the world today. Lots there to read, but will just choose the following two quotes as an invitation for you to read the rest. First:
In order to calmly debate all ideas, you need to put emotion aside. But females are simply less able to do that than males because they are higher in Neuroticism—feeling negative feelings strongly. Thus, they more easily become overwhelmed by negative feelings, precluding them from logical thought.
Then this:
Ed Dutton, in a video entitled “Do Females Reduce Male Per Capita Genius?” takes this critique of feminism even further. He argues that geniuses are overwhelmingly male because they combine outlier high IQ with moderately low Agreeableness and moderately low Conscientiousness. This means they are clever enough to solve a difficult problem, but being low in rule-following, can also “think outside the box.” And, being low in Agreeableness, they don’t care about offending people, which original ideas always do.
An aspect of Agreeableness is empathy—being concerned with the feelings of others and being able to guess what they might be. Dutton shows that people who are high in “systematizing” (which males typically are compared to females, with systematizing being vital to problem solving) tend to be low in empathy. Thus, Dutton argues, you don’t get many women geniuses because their IQ range is more bunched towards the mean; and also because they are too high in Agreeableness and Conscientiousness.
Universities, traditionally dominated by males, have in essence been about giving geniuses a place in which they can attempt to solve their problems, working at their chosen problems for years on end. But Dutton argues that female academics tend to be the “Head Girl Type” (chief prefect at all-girls schools in the UK) with “normal range” high IQ and high in Conscientiousness and Agreeableness—the exact opposite of a typical genius. Accordingly, once you allow females into academia, they will be promoted over genius males because they come across as better people to work with—more conscientious, easier to be around and more socially skilled. But this will tend to deny geniuses the place of nurture they need.
Unbelievable. Not the text, but that either could be published anywhere in the West in a respectable newspaper at this moment in time.
DRUDGE has learned that Bloomberg himself would go as far as to 
Law of Markets 