I would suggest, with respect, that you are in error in the essay “Men, Women, and Ghosts in Science” by the assumption that there are male brains, female brains, and “balanced” brains, and that these are distributed in a ratio of 60-20-20 in each sex. But thousands of years of experience have shown that there are not different brains for men and women, but that, instead, men and women have different characteristics from each other in a greater or lesser degree. I have never met a woman who has a “male brain”, nor have I ever met a man who has a female brain” (apart, of course, from homosexuals).

The average IQs of men and women have been measured to be exactly the same, but there are great differences in distribution and in particular abilities. Men’s IQ has a much greater range than women’s, while women’s IQs tend to be grouped more closely around the average. That means that idiots and geniuses tend to be men. It also means that, as you go up in IQ, men predominate more and more. Thus, the simple reason that women do not get as many Firsts at Oxbridge, is simply that, at the top level, they are out-numbered by men. There are also differences in specific abilities. Women’s minds work more quickly than men’s, and in anything to do with words, women do much better than men. On the other hand, in spatial relations, for example, women do not do very well, which is why there are so few women engineers. It is not that they are not allowed to be engineers, it is simply that they are not good at it. For the same reason, women cannot compete with men in chess.

A fascinating example of the differences occurs in the game of Bridge, which is very popular in the Western World, and which is played by more women than men. At the middle levels, women are more reliable players, because they are sensible and do not try to show off, the way men do. At the higher levels, however, women cannot begin to compete with men. Dorothy Truscott, the American World Champion and one of the few women players who could compete with men, ascribes this to the fact that, at the highest levels, women’s concentration is not as strong as men’s. This is because, in order to cope with children, Nature gives women the ability to do several things at the same time. By contrast, men can only do one thing at a time. But this ability of women to do several things at the same time, dilutes the strength of their concentration.

On the political side, I was disappointed to see the word “stereotyping” in your essay. “Stereotype” is a propaganda word used by the Left-wing. The proper English word is “normal”, so what Mr Baron-Cohen is saying is that normality is “unscientific”. You also suggest the idea of trying to obtain a “gender parity”. This is, of course, another very Left-wing idea, which is abhorrent to people who believe in freedom, as it is based on dictatorship and social engineering. Finally, you make the extraordinary suggestion that there is no reason why “the main carer of the children should not be the father”, and also that the father is the one who should take time off to look after the sick child. The fact that your suggestion is unmanly and flies in the face of man’s nature, does not seem to worry you. It is perhaps helpful to remember that it is only 150 years ago, with the arrival of the railroads, that women have been able to move from their homes, to go out to work. For thousands of years before that, there was no question of women working, except in the neighbourhood in which they lived. If God (or Nature, if you prefer) had wanted men to look after their children, would they have waited 10,000 years to make it possible?