Who said it can't?    Not me.     I'm merely stating the fact that both Damore and Soh chose to ignore the bigger questions.     Worse - people who have no background in science are mistakenly assuming that both Damore and Soh's conclusions are based upon "science" (because the headline says so, in the case of Soh).     They're not.    In fact, they are just as biased as this article in the way they ignore many factors which may dominate (perhaps by a huge margin) what they claim "science" has proven.

My main objection to both is the way they are being presented and perceived as "scientific".