Quantum physics and gender equity - Ri Science Podcast with Jess Wade

[@TheRoyalInstitution]

Our position at the RI is that science is for everyone. We make our home in London and our online spaces welcoming, respectful and safe for all. We will not tolerate abuse or harassment of our people, nor of our audiences. We support and welcome freedom of speech - science is, after all, a world of exploration and debate - but we expect those sharing our online and in-person spaces to be respectful to all. Free speech doesn’t give anyone the right to be racist or sexist or transphobic, nor to mis-use the power of science to incite hatred. We are not open to those who seek to use science as an excuse for prejudice, discrimination and hate. We will remove comments that are offensive to our speaker or to our audiences, and we encourage those commenting to watch the full video before responding, rather than just reading the title. If you take the time to watch this podcast video, you will see that as well as discussing quantum physics, Jess talks about her important work creating profiles of women scientists on Wikipedia, to make sure everyone's contribution to science is celebrated.

[@RedstonekPL]

>science is for everyone really??? no way!!!

[@jesuschrist7169]

You welcome freedom of speech but deny basic science and common sense. Deleting comments just shows the people are right.

[@jesserobinson2948]

Deleting comments like a communist? Is it that your proposal does not hold weight, or that you are forcing it on your subscribers, who give ears to your platform? I to will unsubscribe as a proud American who believes in the God given rights of humans to speak. To silence others opinions in a public square is for lack of better words, not smart. I wont be bullied into believing your doctrine as you wouldn't be for mine. Think next time to just present something. If you have to silence others, it gives cause to review.

[@jneilson7568]

Honestly, give this a more useful title. Your fear of actual debate is also very telling, I wonder if a different demographic would baulk so readily at genuine discussion, even in their own heads, as to why this sort of framing provokes such a response. Unless this was deliberately done to provoke interaction in the comments.

[@vertigoz]

​@@jesuschrist7169Wich basic science?

[@acetate909]

The only equity physics departments should care about is ingellegence and qualification status. Also, equity and equality are two different things. These ridiculous ideas are hurting society. They've already made the humanity studies a joke and now they're coming for the hard sciences.

[@acetate909]

Here's an idea for a quantum physics experiment. Set up the double slit experiment and have the observer identify as a tree. I wonder if the pattern produced will be single dot marks, vertical lines, or a message saying "'classification error".

[@abshark]

20:03 You made a comment on being part of a female majority at art school. Why then, would being part of a male majority in a physics prgramme be of any more than just that? Why should we strive for gender equality when students choose their own pathways?

[@justinpyle3415]

@@abshark they dont want equality, they want equity

[@timothy8426]

Royal Institute is sliding down the scale of intellectual science.

[@braindecay9477]

The title 💀 Physics isn't gender studies, please let's leave it that way. There's literally no place for this in hard science

[@blademonger6179]

Exactly!

[@nakedbeekeeper9610]

They won't stop. They will ruin everything with this nonsense. There is a money incentive to do so.

[@TheRoyalInstitution]

If you take the time to watch this video, you will see that Jess discusses both these topics - quantum physics, and her work on addressing gender equity in Wikipedia profiles of scientists. This podcast is a discussion of Jess's important work in both areas, and we would encourage you to watch the full video before commenting, rather than just reacting to the title.

[@ZoonCrypticon]

"The Royal Institution" lost its image. Recently they posted 5 consecutive reuploads from the almost militant atheist Richard Dawkins from the 90´s and now this. Incredible !!!

[@thastayapongsak4422]

Well guess what? that's not what this video is about.

[@yuhboi6816]

Do electrons care about the gender of the person observing them?

[@iAnasazi]

They better do, or else!

[@stofosaurus]

well no. But you strike me as the kind of guy who obsessess with whats between the legs of children as well as grownups. You probably deserve to be on some sort of list? Am I reaching? Am I really? Maybe listen to the the interview instead of getting triggered by the title of the video.

[@justinpyle3415]

If they dont, RI will delete them

[@lgnd-lm6ug]

Of course unless they want to be censored and cancelled

[@theozarktrekker]

Of course not. Protons on the other hand are very discriminating.

[@TheLukanda]

Dear RI. Either you are completely unaware of general society's adverse reaction to manufactured inclusion, or you actually believe that inclusion means discriminating the majority of students, teachers and curious people in favour of meritless self proclaimed minorities.

[@TiagoSeiler]

Why not both?

[@TheLukanda]

​@@TiagoSeiler Good point!

[@Darwin_is_my_copilot]

Few things in nature exist as true binaries, esp. manufactured choices like yours.

[@mariusvanc]

How about we get the best people to do science, instead of forcing some mythical and arbitrary diversity ratio....

[@-_Nuke_-]

THANK YOU!

[@ferver-san]

Ok Royal Institution,time to unsubscribe. Another one bites the dust.

[@notanemoprog]

Same here. 125 downvotes to 54 upvotes says it all: it's even worse beating than their ideological brothers (and sisters, and other-gendered siblings) in America got on Election Day

[@Mandragara]

The title is atroscious and doesn't do a good job of describing what is in the talk, as it is ambiguous. I initially read it as a singular topic, that they would be discussion gender equity in quantum physics.

[@stofosaurus]

yes, what an ATROSCIOUS title and it triggered you so badly.

[@justinpyle3415]

For a science focused organization you all should really look at a dictionary and think about the difference between "equity" and "equality".

[@PaendaTube]

I'm unsubscribing This is not what i signed up for, quantum physics knows no semblance of creed, gender, race, social status It is physics

[@TheRoyalInstitution]

If you take the time to watch this video, you will see that Jess discusses both these topics - quantum physics, and her work on addressing gender equity in Wikipedia profiles of scientists. This podcast is a discussion of Jess's important work in both areas, and we would encourage you to watch the full video before commenting, rather than just reacting to the title.

[@ZoonCrypticon]

Me too.

[@PaendaTube]

​@@TheRoyalInstitutionthan make a better title that would provoke thought rather than pandering to a political leaning. In 100 years those wikipedia pages will mean nothing academia is at fault for the bias that you see since it progresses at a glacial pace. Even than I am not looking for a dissertation on the affects that slow acedemia has had in thoughtful intelligent hard working women in the field. It also plagues my colleagues who are not native english speakers or white. To make the focal women is politcal and leaves a bad taste in any truth seeking individual. We want content on the truth seeking we do in physics not the qualms of those affected by the slow progress that is academia Maybe a better title if you want better reactions, why would i sit down and watch 50 minutes of at first glance is not related to my seeking of truth in physics

[@PBeringer]

Bye!

[@4of20]

@@TheRoyalInstitution then do a better job making the title, i unsubbed too see ya

[@sturdyblock]

Ambiguous and misleading. RI you should be ashamed.

[@doppelwhopper7133]

This channel should be about science.

[@ge2719]

20:00 "i'm not in the majority any more... which you are in at art school". so why didn't you start advocating for more men in art school? You saw the result of people choices and decided you wanted to make people change what they are interested it.

[@PBeringer]

Because there are no extant systemic and cultural barriers to men attending art school. If a man enrols in art school, they're not very likely to be discriminated against and belittled by their fellow students/colleagues, who continually question the validity of their attendance, and view success with suspicion. The comments section only discloses just how many people who claim to be interested in science don't have brains capable of humanity, so it's doubtful they have brains capable of doing science. There is also a lot of people carrying on like entitled, spoiled children, and proving that when one is so accustomed to privilege, inclusion can feel like oppression. Go to art school ... be a hero ... My God. Nothing is happening to you. Why should you care if you're "in the majority", anyway? Slightly more of the population is non-male; what are you going to do? Stop being so goddamned scared.

[@vertigoz]

If you understand envy you'll understand why...

[@DontTrustThemSnakes]

😂 the irony is I’ve been studying quantum physics since I was a child , read a book on gama ray burst in 4th grade and it was off to the races yet I’m going to art school to make video games

[@DontTrustThemSnakes]

@@PBeringerok but then why don’t women just care more about science?

[@ge2719]

@@PBeringer everything you just said is nonsense. and i know its nonsense because theres no people more exclusionary than women in "women's spaces". no one can make you feel as unwelcome with a single look as a woman who does want a man to be in "her" spaces. men absolutely aren't welcome in many art spaces, meanwhile the "belittling" of women in men's spaces is the sort of bs that only happens in tv. " The comments section only discloses just how many people who claim to be interested in science don't have brains capable of humanity, so it's doubtful they have brains capable of doing science" so because they don't agree with your identity ideology nonsense they must not have brains... thanks for proving my point. You are doing exactly what i said women do. I have literally never seen someone be as exclusionary about keeping women out of anywhere as you just where in your reply here. "Why should you care if you're "in the majority", anyway?" exactly. you're starting to get it. lets see if it clicks.... or if you're just going to continue to be scared and angry.

[@PetraKann]

Ridiculous title- utter nonsense on a stick

[@4of20]

unsub if you are subbed, let them know you disapprove with the numbers

[@acetate909]

@@4of20 I completely get your reasoning as giving these videos our views lends credence and validating to their messaging. But I stay subbed to some of these these channels because some actually produce quality content among this DEI nonsense. But I also like to stay aware of what's happening in influential places that I don't agree with. I need to know what they're saying and what trends they're setting up to push next. To push back against bad ideas we need identity and understand the core of those ideas. Though un-subbing is a great waybto tell a channel that their audience will leave if that channel starts pushing nonsense.

[@ronanmcw]

It won't leave though. Majority of the audience is educated and therefore isn't scared of dei

[@heldenby]

Does anyone know what's going on here?

[@-_Nuke_-]

I don't care to even look - I'll just downvote and move away...

[@thisisfyne]

RI seems to want to turn into TED or something

[@kirkgilbreath5094]

😂😂

[@retroccryptgaming]

Two things that should never be in the same sentence.

[@-_Nuke_-]

EXACTLY xD

[@havingfunisnthard]

Just admit you don’t care about the second part of that sentence at allll and be done with it.

[@theonenonlybass]

were getting woke physics now.. unsubscribed

[@sjeses]

I do not appreciate intentionally misleading titles, designed to garner activity in the comment section (and worse, negative activity), nor am I interested in listening to a talk that combines these two subjects. My mental spam filter only has so much bandwidth. Science is interesting, politics is aggravating, gender politics doubly so.. I thought you people were supposed to be intelligent, do you not understand how this undermines your reputation? besides, instead of talking about equity, you could be talking about what people have invented or discovered, regardless of what they have between their legs. If another video gets posted with this type of clickbait title, I can only assume that it is an intentional path that the institution is taking, and no longer worth paying attention to because it has been taken over by people with the wrong intentions.

[@turdleknight]

The next episode’s title will be “Electrons can identify as Protons!” And us Neutrons will just sit back laughing 🤣 maybe Protons spinning around Protons is where all the missing mass and energy is 🤯

[@arcitejack]

Unsubscribing because it's a religious channel.

[@Cylume.]

Why did you have to go there. People are tired of the politics.

[@notanemoprog]

Because for them it is a religious dogma.

[@steadyrow]

It's a race to the bottom

[@PBeringer]

It's a race to YOUR bottom.

[@likwidmocean]

Unsubscribing.

[@HKhandelwal007]

Pls do .. u were not doing any good as such by feeling pricey .. no one is here to serve you .. milord..😅

[@notanemoprog]

@@HKhandelwal007 You're not coping very well at all facing the defeat of your ideology, are you now sweetie?

[@cedarstuff]

RI talking about photos on Wikipedia pages is why these kind of videos are dismissed as nonsense. I want to hear you two talk science.

[@justinberling4946]

Wild. Its incredibly cool to me how people that love the things they do, want to share it with others because they think its cool and has autotelic value. Then to wonder, why is the existing ingroup not representative of the general population? And then to ask: are there perhaps any existing systems and structures that may have led to the deliberate exclusion of people in favour of a more exclusive ingroup? And then, if there are, how do we change that, to allow more people to be more involved and with greater accessibility and access to this thing we do and love? Ideologies and biases are clear spectacles. We look through them, it sometimes makes things clearer for us, but if you wear them long enough it's easy to forget they're there. This is the scientific process. To challenge and explore, to find out. And to widen our understanding in response. Pretty cool.

[@duggydo]

Time for normal people to get into Physics and save it. These people are ruining science in general.

[@PBeringer]

"These people"? Who?

[@nakedbeekeeper9610]

​@@PBeringerideologues

[@DontTrustThemSnakes]

@@PBeringerthe left and blue sky liberals from tumblr

[@TheMonkeydood]

What is 'normal people' defined as exactly ?

[@Goat-e3g]

The so called critical feminists

[@kakte4300]

Yep. This is exactly where we should draw the line.

[@daddust]

Quantum computers aren’t good at anything, they have no current actual application. They have not done any useful calculation, even experimentally. And I want my kid to study quantum computing but I know the state of the field.’

[@Martin_137]

I wonder what Richard Dawkins would say to The Royal Institution putting THIS up right after his lectures... :-D

[@Martin_137]

I expect the next lecture to be on equity in mining, construction, waste management, etc. Women should really fight for a half of those positions. ;-) Perhaps even demanding half of chess grandmasteries and war casualties all over the world...

[@thisisfyne]

@@Martin_137 95+% of roofers and masons are men. Where's the outrage? Strange how only comfortable and high status positions are the target of the equity rhetoric.

[@-_Nuke_-]

I wonder what Christopher Hitchens had to say about all this...

[@Artek604]

PSA: the talk turns from fascinating to DEI drivel at around 15:00

[@robbiekavanagh2802]

Agreed, although there was a lot of talk about science from the perspective of profit/corporations, though, which is completely antithetical to the spirit of Ri as I understand it. This speaker's motivations are warped through and through. In another world, she could've given a great lecture in the standard Ri format. 45:46 Her true motivations are revealed, she doesn't really want to be a great scientist, she's pursuing the extremely lucrative "equity" administrative positions that are popping up everywhere in colleges and universities, increasing the cost of education while decreasing its value.

[@RottnRobbie]

The title is so wrong that it's clear it was purposely chosen to trigger controversy and "engagement" in the form of comments. (Gotta feed the algorithm, I guess)? For one thing, quantum physics wasn't discussed at all, quantum TECHNOLOGY was - although only briefly. But mostly, the overwhelmingly main focus of the talk was unequal gender representation in physics, and the title should've reflected that. And given the emotionally charged meanings the word 'equity' has in modern political discourse, I can only presume the intention of the word choice was to stir up controversy. A better, and more accurate, title would have been "Addressing unequal gender representation in science, with a brief discussion of quantum technology" Yes, I watched the whole video before commenting. And now that I have, I resent the blatant and obviously manipulative tacking on of a short introductory chat about the state of quantum technology, just so you could justify the words "quantum physics" in the title. Did you really think that the RI subscriber base would quietly swallow the "but both subjects were discussed" defence?

[@vertigoz]

I would love these folks would learn a bit of biology and about populations. Then perhaps they would realize those inherent drives which exists that makes it almost impossible to have 50% 50% split of characteristics amongst populations. It's like they want to say those things which women are naturally drawn too are worthless, and only thing of value are things men tends to like more...

[@Mandragara]

Where does she say she wants a 50/50 split? She just objects to demonstrable biases

[@vertigoz]

@@Mandragara it is stated on the title. I cannot construct equity without 50/50 As for your remark, I am all for objecting demonstrable biases, what I found odd is that at this day and age we didn't seem to get around it. One thing I am certain: The title does not aid at all in reaching those who might require more such information.

[@iTeerRex]

This no longer is the RI of some of the greats of science. It has gone woke and it’s going broke.

[@vertigoz]

FFS learn a new word, there's a lot in the dictionary

[@notanemoprog]

@@vertigoz No need. "Woke" describes them, and you, _perfectly_ well.

[@markxl]

I grew up in the 60s watching the RI Christmas lectures - I encouraged my children to watch them but noticed that over the years nothing could ever be discussed without bringing climate change into the matter. With this nonsense I will not be encouraging my grandchildren to watch your lectures.

[@tabaks]

"Equity"?

[@DavidSigbi]

What an age..

[@notanemoprog]

There is no such thing as "gender equity"; and the only rational question involved, the one of _equality_ of genders - other than its obvious validity in a judicial sense - is a scientific _question_ and not a cult-like dogma. Otherwise it has got nothing whatsoever to do with science, like for example in this ludicrous presentation. Do better.

[@RickLambert963]

Agreed 💯. A serious case of can't understand normal thinking, apples equals oranges equals pears equals fok'n bananas. Males and females aren't equal. Male and female brains are very different. Fok DEI philosophy, especially here. "Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." Nikola Tesla. E = mc^2 What value for energy? What value for mass? What value for the speed of light squared?

[@michaelkalin2209]

ur not very smart, huh

[@terrizittritsch745]

You can tell how important a topic is by how it tweaks a certain portion of the population in a negative way. Bravo RI! As seen here, it seems many males, likely the entitled and misogynistic, are fixated on the title and not on the content. The speaker seems very intelligent and thoughtful on the environment she finds herself in. I think her constantly fidgeting with her hair is a bit distracting and odd for someone so bright. It's a bit odd that someone didn't stop this interview and help her resolve this distraction. For all of the negative comments, I wonder how many are just trolls! We see trolls all over the internet now, especially in social media trying to negatively influence anything that talks of gender equality.

[@bradleykronson2185]

WTAF. You could have stopped at Quantum physics and left the DEI at the slit.

[@Desertphile]

"Quantum physics and gender equity." Good bloody gods that is hilarious! ROTFL!

[@chanpol321]

Pure mathematics is a fascinating field that focuses on abstract concepts and theoretical frameworks. Here are some key areas within pure math: 1. **Algebra**: The study of symbols and the rules for manipulating these symbols. It includes topics like groups, rings, and fields. 2. **Analysis**: This area deals with limits and related theories, such as differentiation, integration, measure, infinite series, and analytic functions. 3. **Geometry**: The study of shapes, sizes, and properties of space. It includes Euclidean geometry, non-Euclidean geometry, and topology. 4. **Number Theory**: Focuses on the properties and relationships of numbers, particularly integers. Famous problems in this area include Fermat's Last Theorem and the Riemann Hypothesis. 5. **Combinatorics**: The study of counting, arrangement, and combination of objects. It has applications in computer science, optimization, and more. 6. **Logic**: The study of formal systems, proof theory, and the foundations of mathematics. It includes topics like set theory and model theory. If you have a specific area or topic in pure math that you're interested in, let me know! We can dive deeper into it.

[@hermosafieldsforever4782]

What a joke, DEI destroyed Boeing, what's next? A hug and a teary eyed moment when somebody spills the cessium? I'm done with this channel, heading over to MIT open course!

[@jamessmith99731]

Keep the downvotes coming. For those who can't see, we're at 143 likes to 611 dislikes.

[@iampdv]

Controversial claim - it's quite hard to stay afloat in academia, so where is the need in those extra brains?

[@bubufant]

It's actually a very interesting video, until 14:45 where the woke part starts.

[@arcitejack]

Ffs

[@robbiekavanagh2802]

23:52 There it is.

[@beachboardfan9544]

Well the first 15 min was decent...

[@vatekehcorlon867]

Thank you guys for this video❤! It’s about time I unsubscribe and I feel like when I saw this video title; this was the last straw. like most are saying here gender equality politics has nothing to do with quantum science and I have no tolerance in 2025/24 for this bs

[@timothy8426]

Doesn't equity dumb down science? Shouldn't it be gender equality. Woke science?

[@RickLambert963]

Woke pseudoscience scientism nonsense.

[@user-qjvqfjv]

Wow, what a massive waste of space this video is.

[@notanemoprog]

Of space-time in fact

[@thisisfyne]

Every upload like this will make the Royal Institution appear less serious and less dedicated to the timeless pursuit of scientific knowledge. We're here to be lectured on quantum fields by great erudite speakers, not on personal matters of current social affairs. Unsubbed

[@iAnasazi]

This a joke?

[@hamsterclamper]

No scientist… in fact, no person will ever be taken seriously if they’re wearing a Hello Kitty sweatshirt🙄

[@Itsallfun3000]

Nothing wrong with wearing something like that.

[@HKhandelwal007]

Dont know if you really meant that .. but not a very scientific comment... 🤔 I don't think you ever belonged here .. 😅

[@notanemoprog]

Or are talking about "equity"

[@mrdarklight]

The only way to stop this insanity is to refuse to participate it. For that reason, I have unsubscribed from this channel, and I suggest you all do the same.

[@pedrosmith4529]

I am going to skip this one.

[@kirkgilbreath5094]

🤣👍

[@nubbinthemonkey]

What about agendered quantum physicists? Let's have proper inclusion

[@DazSalford69]

Unsubbed ridiculous title .pity i used to love this channel 😢

[@aethellstan]

good grief

[@PBeringer]

Aww, Charlie Brown. Did Lucy take the football away at the last moment as you were trying to kick it? I hope so ...

[@johndoe-sh6bi]

Wow. Just wow. Even physics has to be woke. Goodbye RI.

[@mysticprophecyroblox]

I love telling people I study quantum physics and seeing their reactions haha. On par with rocket science I'd say, in terms of reactions.

[@UltrosTako]

unsubbed

[@krimke881]

no, no, no, no, no, no, noo... this is actually unsub.

[@rememberthefuture944]

Unsubbed

[@ThuraZawOo]

is this two-topics talk?

[@ndechindech290]

Yawn.

[@wmwragg]

There is so much misogyny and sexism in the comments section. Science has always had a gender problem despite the fact that scientists are supposed to be more rational. Pushing for more equality in science is unfortunately still required in this day and age. Just looking at this comments section should indicate why

[@speedymccreedy8785]

There is a reason why males are always ‘over represented’ in Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics. Efforts in recent years to alter reality only make it obvious that a large numbers of females have had their marks artificially boosted, making everyone doubt their capability.

[@speedymccreedy8785]

So the message is clear from the comments section, we all reject misandrist babble and welcome the final end of Obama identity politics and DEI, Division, Exclusion, Indoctrination.

[@wmwragg]

Equality is more than just numbers, it doesn't just stop when the numbers reach parity or beyond. Just read this comment section to see why, it's truly appalling

[@Ali-lm7uw]

@@Nick-mt4wk exactly, in country in many instituitions women do not even have to even pay the application fees for PhD and other such programmes.

[@jesserobinson2948]

Is it also racist too? 🇺🇲

[@physicshuman9808]

First

[@aethellstan]

well done. i'm proud of you.

[@nakedbeekeeper9610]

@@physicshuman9808 that's very abliest of you, against slow people like me. Cancel him please.

[@jadebrownofficial]

The ones who have a problem with cancel culture and being triggered sure seem to be the ones who are triggered and ready to cancel judging by the comment section.

[@notanemoprog]

No. _You_ are the ones introducing scientifically irrelevant meaningless ideological newspeak monstrosities like "equity" into science - while most of the time not even knowing what it is supposed to mean, or that it is _not_ the same as "equality" - while rational people are standing athwart your attempts to falsify history and neuter the very basis of scientific thinking, yelling "Stop!" We are not the same.

[@GrouchierThanThou]

That's because you don't understand the difference between expressing disagreement with something and canceling it. The only ones actually canceling anything in this, situation are the RI people deleting comments they don't like.

[@turdleknight]

Respect to the @TRI ! I wholly accept technically it is a suitably acceptable video title however it would be great to stay away from terminology that attracts people who don’t have the patience to watch your videos in its entirety. E.g “Quantum Physics and discussion on gender representation and diversity in physics” would be so much more thought provoking and not following the social media and aggravating language …. Just a suggestion in making the world a better place!

[@ellium1147]

Great conversation!

[@AnakreontasMentis]

Colorless green ideas sleep furiously

[@PBeringer]

15:20 ... The God of the "quantum old boys' club" is surely Richard Feynman. This comments section is extremely disheartening ... but sadly, unsurprising. If someone is incapable of understanding why this is important, they're in capable of being a constructive human. Simple.

[@Mandragara]

Empowering the disadvantaged is morally good, but it harms the field. This is because the disadvantaged are less able, through no fault of their own, but as a result of systemic discrimination. However promoting these less able people doesn't undo that wrong, it just harms the field they are being promoted to - as they are not the best candidate for the job

[@user-qjvqfjv]

You're a sexist.

[@notanemoprog]

The only _actually_ simple thing here is, in fact, you.

[@PBeringer]

@@notanemoprog Well done; one of your best.

[@duggydo]

Written like someone with a truly closed mind unwilling to understand different perspectives.

[@EnPee91]

Before listening to this and noticing the dislike ratio, I get that the title will attract lots of clicks but it's probably better to be specific. Something like "Quantum physics and recognition of female achievements" sounds far more attractive to me than "Quantum physics and gender equity". The current title incites a political debate rather than what I imagine were the true intentions of the discussion.

[@azharalibhutto1209]

Great ❤❤❤

[@That1Gal3.141]

To the people that are saying "Oh this is too far" or "won't be watching you anymore" or anything like that, you have not only missed the point of this video, but science as a whole. Having missed the point of the video is obvious, but science is about knowing you could be wrong, and then if you do turn out to be wrong, correcting yourself. We are now actually realising that, when you stop supressing anyone that isn't a straight cis white male, there are all sorts of people in the world that are just as smart as that group I just mentioned, but they are being discredited because of previous prejudice, despite the evidence showing that there is a negligible, if at all, difference. If you are discrediting these minority groups then you don't truly believe in science, as you have ignored all of the evidence which is what science is about. By all means, have those opinions, no one can stop you, but don't then go and pretend you are a person of science and of evidence. Please do research and if the evidence challenges your ideas, let it, make sure the evidence is valid, scrutinise it. If after all that it holds up, change your views. Be respectful and don't hate for hating's sake.