1) Whether or not such a consensus exists is somewhat orthogonal to the question "Would any evidence convince you to change your mind"
2) There is complete consensus that there are morphological differences between the sexes; this consensus extends to neurology. To what degree these morphological differences are genetic is up for debate (remember that brain morphology is absolutely environmentally affected), but most of the time we have studied traits for nature vs. nurture, the answer has been "both."
3) For some mental traits (e.g. IQ) it is well established that the difference, if any between the means of men and women is quite small. For other mental traits it is well established that the difference is quite significant, and the question is to what degree it is genetic versus environmental.
4) Many people on the left have argued that any investigation into innate differences between men and women should not be allowed, under the theory that any positive result would be co-opted by misogynists. That might be true and even be a good reason to avoid the research in today's cultural climate, but it's definitely fallacious as an argument that there are no inherent differences; this study was specifically about fallacious reasoning, not correct reasoning.
No, it's the opposite.
'Born that way' was a positioning effort discovered in tye 90's by gay advocacy groups.
When social conservatives believe that 'gay is a choice' - then they are against it, but if social conservatives can be convinced that people are simply 'born that way' i.e. inherently gay, and it's not a behavioural thing, then clear majorities of them are accepting of it.
It's the biggest factor in determining a social conservatives tolerance towards gays.
The science I think is still out on that, but there's no doubt that the community marketing objectives are oriented towards 'inherent'.
When Cynthia Nixon decided in later life that she was gay - and then virulently said that she was in fact straight before, i.e. not 'coming out' but rather 'becoming gay' - it upset the gay community a lot because this is inconsistent with the marketing by the gay community.
This is one of a few topics that tend to be twisted by all sides. The science is vague.
Why do you think that?
You are shifting the goalposts. We were discussing traits/personality differences.
Gender differences in the big 5 personality traits for example have broad scientific consensus.
Tying that to career choices isn’t really scientific AFAIK.
In your first paragraph you were clearly talking about traits and not outcomes:
> attribute sex-/gender-specific trait differences to culture/environmental
I missed where you changed to outcomes in your second paragraph.
The positive correlation between readily available long guns (i.e. non handguns) and violent crime (protip: the official stats tell the opposite story) is the equivalent to climate change denial (i.e. directly contradicted by pretty much all available evidence and pretty much everyone who is an expert in the subject) for the other end of the political spectrum. If you're looking for examples of illogical opinions this one is as good as any.
No, it's not though. It's cherry-picked political. Most instances of believing this contrary to evidence aren't just political.
They are individual (e.g. thinking one is smarter than they are), religious, social (glorifying founding fathers), or even ethical